Is God a liar?

Ben johnson

Legend
Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟54,049.00
Faith
Christian
Let's use this as an example as to your misrepresentation of science. A few thousand years? Carbon 14 works up to 50,000 years. After that we have other forms of radiometric dating.

C14 has a half-life of 5,730 years; it PRESUMES constant concentrations. Question -- what caused the ice-age? Could something have blocked the sun and also reduced neutron-bombardment of nitrogen (less C14, apparent older age)? Yes.

OH, rather than picking a few things to which you can respond, would you be willing to address more critical issues?

For instance --- the Miller/Urey biogenesis experiment. Was a fraud, because:
1. Had no free oxygen (would poison the experiment), but geological stack shows constant oxygen

2. Was OPEN and not closed (that's a stunt, not an experiment) -- circulation system (non naturally occurring).

3. Circulation had an amino-acid trap (non-natural!) to carefully collect any amino acids (without the trap, the destruct rate was billions to one -- none would have endured!)

4. Produced very SIMPLE amino acids, nowhere near adenine, cytosine, thymine, and guanine. And the produced amino acids came in equal quantities of left-handed and right-handed molecules. Life is comprised only of left-handed ones.​

So a critical question (perhaps the best), is -- "How did amino acids form themselves into WORKING, REPRODUCING dna?"

DNA does not function without containment in cellular walls; and cells are made by DNA. Yes I know about "black smokers" and conjecture about "porous rock containing it until it learned to produce cells" -- really?

Pretend a DNA can function with only ten blocks. And give extremely generous odds of 1 chance in a thousand for each block to occur. So for simultaneous occurrence, it's 1x10[sup]30[/sup]. That's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

But that's an outrageously generous unrealistic probability of simultaneity; and flat ignores that HUMAN dna, exists in 23 chromosome pairs, forty six genes of THREE BILLION BLOCKS EACH.

We can count to 3,000,000,000 --- count three per second, never eat sleep or take breaks, would take us thirty years. THEN we have to do it again another 45 times!

And THEN we have to START ALL OVER for "mitochondria", which has different DNA!

So not even 4.5 billion years are enough. Evolutionists admit to this; so Hawking and other God-haters propose "the Multiverse" --- only if there are infinite Earths in infinite parallel Universes can there be infinite monkeys at infinite typewriters so that one turns out SHAKESPEARE!


They have gobs more faith than I do, because I believe in one God and one Earth. (Magnitudes more than gobs, billions and billions of times more!)

(...best Carl Sagan voice...)
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Does not. The Universe is thought to be 93billion light years wide; but only 13.7 billion years old -- how can things travel 46.5 billion light years in only 13.7 billion years, if nothing can move faster than light?

(sigh) Space itself is allowed to expand faster than the speed of light, even if things in space cannot. Also, contrary to your assertions, it is possible to alternately simply suppose the objects including space itself at the extreme distances are actually contracted, as per Einstein's special theory of relativity, and therefore the universe isn't that wide yet.

"Space-time" has no upper limit on velocity. At the instant of inflation, pockets of space-time may have moved at MINIMUM velocity of 30 million, billion times faster than light. That's the WHOLE UNIVERSE expanding in essentially an instant.

Just say "God must have done it" and all your mysteries vanish.

Lunar dust does not support 4.5 billion years, but only a few thousand; there should be OCEANS of dust. (Arthur C. Clark, "A Fall of Moondust")

This false notion has been debunked for years. Space Dust, The Moon's Surface, and the Age of the Cosmos | NCSE

Carbon14 dating is only good for a few thousand years, and PRESUMES initial concentration (by neutron action on atmospheric nitrogen).

Carbon 14 dating is compared and verified against other known, obvious factors such as tree ring counting and annual deposits in lake bottoms. No presumption necessary . . . it is verified.

Geological structuring is circular, "we know the age of the rocks by the fossils, and we know the age of the fossils by the rocks!" Thousands of years of geological structuring happened in WEEKS at Mount Saint Helens.

Fossils did prove geological ages existed before the layers could be accurately dated. But we now have accurate indendent dating of geological layers that give us actual, dependable ages. Mount St Helens did NOT do anything that geologists require to take ages. Creationists think any ol ditch is the same as the grand canyon and they are wrong about that. For example, the grand canyon has several layers in its side made of sandstone. How many sandstone layers formed in the cracks in the lava/ash stuff from Mt St Helens? Answer . . . none.

We could be here all day...

Yes we could, and you could be wrong all day.

THEY DO NOT! Fossils have been FALSIFIED -- from Dawson's "Piltdown Man",

ONE fraudulent fossil, a prank that went bad, among MILLIONS of good fossils

to the REVERSED Equine Evolution series!

Just because we discover a whole lot more equine species in the fossil record, suddenly this disproves evolution? It ILLUSTRATES evolution.

To peppered-moths, etcettera!

Alledged problems with peppered moths are absent when examined.

No, all you "supposed-scientists", the Cambrian Explosion showed MANY branches occurring SIMULTANEOUSLY -- as if many forms were created at once.

The Cambrian period lasted millions of years. Fossils in that period only represent the time when life developed the ability to grow shells that would fossilize more readily.

Darwin said, "If we do not find a single tree progression, the whole theory will have to be scrapped". Well we don't; multiple trees starting together.

Darwin didn't say that. And we do construct trees of the first life forms, but they have to be a bit more tentative because evidence is harder to find from the very beginning of life.

First, admit THERE IS NO SUCH THING as an Atheist.

There you guys go again, telling other people what they believe. How dare you?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Gene Parmesan
Upvote 0

Humble Servant of Christ

Humble Mustanger
Aug 12, 2016
47
34
54
Illinois
✟27,038.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Interesting since I heard scientist mention this principle and it's an old religious principle that deal more than just math long before 1600's. It's exactly like the idea that the earth went around the sun was before Isaac Newton calculus. This principle as with most principles were mention before Jesus birth.
I didn't claim Hubble worship the sun but this principle in the past lead people to worship the stars ,sun and moon.

Not only is the Big Bang anti-scripture it's also anti-science. First the Big Bang myth has to call on the "tooth fairy" more than one (that came from a scientist criticism of the Big Bang) , inflation, dark energy and dark matter. Second it refute science since it leads to the Boltzmann Brain Paradox.
It's a shame Christian rather support something that even the unbelievers knows has serious problems than to believe God spoke the universe into existence just as He claimed He did.


And that's the paradox. It's multitudes more likely for a singularity to produce a smaller less complex universe then a extremely fine-tune huge universe. This would imply that it's multitudes more likely a singularity to produce a Boltzmann Brain than the real universe with brain within real bodies.
This means that science would refute itself since the universe doesn't actual exist.
You assume I haven't spent time reading up on the Big Bang theory.

The Bible doesn't deal with science it's deal with the heart of the scientist where all science come from. It's here where I learn the religious belief behind evolution and Big Bang and it's not Biblical.
Did you even read what i wrote? The principle of continuity is a valid scientific and mathematical thereom. Your definition is not the mathematical thereom. I was doing you a favor in asking that you not not use it erroneously but it seems like you are determined to link an ancient wicca religion to modern science.

Boltzmann....do you really want to discuss why there are not billions of floating brains in space? But since you brought it up, Boltzmann proposed several philosophical questions. The Boltzmann brain is the hypothetical brain that can be created by random molecules. He supposed if a sensient brain can form in an animal, it should be able to form randomly in space. Is this really what you are using to argue against the Big Bang?

Boltzmann tied reality to being self aware. He supposed that the universe exists since humanity can be aware of it. Animals are not aware so to them there is no universe. Once again....what is your point? If some one never sees ice, does the arctic exists? The Christian knows that God gave humanity intelligence so they could understand His universe.

Botlzmann supposed that order and complexity never comes from randomness and that systems tend to move to chaos. Once again...what is your point? The Big Bang was not a random event. The singularity was not a result of randomness. It was created in such perfect balance with the perfect universal laws that the universe we see today was the only possible result. It was created by God so it was not random! Boltzmann dos not refute the Big Bang. His supposition is used by people to interject randomness to the creation of the universe.

Multi universes.....not to be a broken record but what is the point. The idea of multi universes poppoing into and out of existence is not scientifically testable and is just a fancy way of reintroducing the static model. Multi universe theory or worm hole theory are better kept in the world of Hollywood. If you think these somehow disprove the Big Bang as created by God, then have at it.

Please be careful in stating that you know what is in the hearts of scientists. You don't. Only God knows people's hearts.

Being unscriptual.....please be careful in your use of what is and was is not scriptual. The devil quoted scripture in tempting Jesus and the pharisees used scripture to condemn Jesus. Scripture also was used to support a flat earth.

This is really not going anywhere so i leave the forum with the following....God have us 2 ears, 2 eyes and 1 mouth so we listen and read twice as much as we talk.

God bless you and may His revelations be made aware to all.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
C14 has a half-life of 5,730 years; it PRESUMES constant concentrations. Question -- what caused the ice-age? Could something have blocked the sun and also reduced neutron-bombardment of nitrogen (less C14, apparent older age)? Yes.
YOu mean, besides clouds and smoke that we kind already like know about? Are you thinking of maybe a spacecraft the size of the moon or something?

For instance --- the Miller/Urey biogenesis experiment. Was a fraud, because:
I'm not interested in proving abiogenesis. Science has not found any evidence either in nature or in the lab of non-life changing into life.

If you want to start your own thread, you are welcome to. In my thread, we stick to my topics, abiogenesis is not the topic. I never claimed it, don't believe in it, don't want to discuss it.

If you want to refute the lines of evidence that the earth is older than 6,000 years old, I'll hear you, so long as you refute ONE POINT AT A TIME. No dumping. Here is the list to choose from: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Did you even read what i wrote? The principle of continuity is a valid scientific and mathematical thereom. Your definition is not the mathematical thereom. I was doing you a favor in asking that you not not use it erroneously but it seems like you are determined to link an ancient wicca religion to modern science.

Boltzmann....do you really want to discuss why there are not billions of floating brains in space? But since you brought it up, Boltzmann proposed several philosophical questions. The Boltzmann brain is the hypothetical brain that can be created by random molecules. He supposed if a sensient brain can form in an animal, it should be able to form randomly in space. Is this really what you are using to argue against the Big Bang?

Boltzmann tied reality to being self aware. He supposed that the universe exists since humanity can be aware of it. Animals are not aware so to them there is no universe. Once again....what is your point? If some one never sees ice, does the arctic exists? The Christian knows that God gave humanity intelligence so they could understand His universe.

Botlzmann supposed that order and complexity never comes from randomness and that systems tend to move to chaos. Once again...what is your point? The Big Bang was not a random event. The singularity was not a result of randomness. It was created in such perfect balance with the perfect universal laws that the universe we see today was the only possible result. It was created by God so it was not random! Boltzmann dos not refute the Big Bang. His supposition is used by people to interject randomness to the creation of the universe.

Multi universes.....not to be a broken record but what is the point. The idea of multi universes poppoing into and out of existence is not scientifically testable and is just a fancy way of reintroducing the static model. Multi universe theory or worm hole theory are better kept in the world of Hollywood. If you think these somehow disprove the Big Bang as created by God, then have at it.

Please be careful in stating that you know what is in the hearts of scientists. You don't. Only God knows people's hearts.

Being unscriptual.....please be careful in your use of what is and was is not scriptual. The devil quoted scripture in tempting Jesus and the pharisees used scripture to condemn Jesus. Scripture also was used to support a flat earth.

This is really not going anywhere so i leave the forum with the following....God have us 2 ears, 2 eyes and 1 mouth so we listen and read twice as much as we talk.

God bless you and may His revelations be made aware to all.
If you have God there is not reason to believe in a singularity the begin with. Why do you think the universe started as a singularity? You assume the religious belief the principle of continuity is true. The belief that life including man was the result of the big fireball in the sky.
If you want to claim Big Bang is science then Boltzmann Brain paradox is a very serious problem. It seem you are trying to use God as a spare tire in order to save a man's theory. You are using God to avoid the conclusion science leads you as science deals with probability.
The whole reason some scientist is appealing to the multi-verse is the failure of the Big Bang theory as the universe seems to be fine tune.
Show me where God ever claim is scripture that the universe started as a singularity? A creator can create something in any order he choose. The principle of continuity doesn't apply a creator. For example a painter can paint the sky blue before he paints the sun. Day one God separate day and night before mention the sun as well the sun is no longer needed in Revelation. From the beginning you have light without the sun and the end you have light without the sun. Do you think that even Moses knew light came from the sun. light before the sun contradicts the principle of continuity and I believe this was done on purpose since God knew man worships these heaven bodies and believes he was created from them.

The flat earth myth is a modern day myth trying to discredit the church.
I totally disagree the scripture supports flat earth since we know for a fact it's was known the earth was round before the New Testament was written. The language of scripture is practical and was written as someone looking a map with Israel in the center of the map because they used flat maps. I have never used a globe to find any location. I've always used a flat map or a flat screen on my cell phone. That's doesn't prove I think the Earth is flat just because I used a flat map.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
If you have God there is not reason to believe in a singularity the begin with. Why do you think the universe started as a singularity?
Science developed because of Christian beliefs in a God who created an orderly universe; the Designer of the Design. This orderly universe could therefore be explored and known, thus Science.

If there is a God, he would not create a universe that lies to us. Therefore we believe in the singularity that the universe reveals to us.

Nuff said.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Science developed because of Christian beliefs in a God who created an orderly universe; the Designer of the Design. This orderly universe could therefore be explored and known, thus Science.

If there is a God, he would not create a universe that lies to us. Therefore we believe in the singularity that the universe reveals to us.

Nuff said.
You are referring to men like Isaac Newton who rejected the principle of continuity as he stated gravity explains how our solar system operates but not it's origins. These men believe revelation over human reasoning which is the exact opposite of today where scientist will often try to explain away human reasoning with human reasoning. They try to explain absolutely everything through evolution ( a product of human reasoning) because of their commitment to this religious principle including their own mind.
The universe is not lying to anyone as there is no evidence that the Big Bang happened or life is the result of the sun in the sky or the Big bang could result into stars or gravity can created solar systems, etc. The Bible made it clear in Hebrews 11:3 " Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
The universe was not made by that which do appear is contradicting the ideal you can tell how God created the universe by it's appearance. God didn't lie to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pat34lee
Upvote 0

Tohu va bohu

Member
May 12, 2017
22
13
Gladstone
✟10,900.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
I’m new to this forum, and I apologize that I haven’t read through all 78 pages of this thread to see if my approach to the question has already been raised (I skimmed enough to see that I don’t think it has). I also know this post is too long, but I think I need to make the full case from the start to avoid misinterpretations. To me the question really comes down to “What is a lie?” and “What are the limits of what God can do without transgressing his own divine character?”

Assertions are often made about what God can or can’t or would or wouldn’t do in regard to creation and appearances of age or of evidences of past events and processes. I think God has a lot more latitude than people would give him. Theistic evolutionists and old-earth creationists both say that God would be deceptive and a liar if he “planted” all the evidence that suggests billions of years of history. But young-earth creationists also often limit God by saying, “He could create an appearance of age, but not of process; that would be deceptive and a lie,” and they are the forced to explain away all the apparent processes as scientific mistakes or bias. But is that necessary? Would it be a lie if God really intended to make a young earth look old and natural and used every tool in his toolbox to do so?

God cannot lie. But the passages that state this truth are specifically about breaking a promise or about things he asserts as true in his inerrant, infallible Word. It does not mean he can never do anything that gives a false impression. When God says one thing in his Word, and the evidence of our eyes says something else, to say that God would be unrighteous or deceptive if he did what we don’t think a righteous God should have done, is like Job saying God was unfair or unrighteous if he made the righteous suffer. God didn’t answer the accusation or explain why he did what he did; he just said, “Were you there when I created the world? Then you have no right to judge me or question how I do things you can’t understand.” We should expect the same answer if we make ourselves God’s judge and jury when we question what he tells us and what he has done in creation.

Rather than judge God or look for excuses to answer Satan’s question, “Did God really say he created the world in six days? Did he really say death would be the consequence of sin?” with the answer, “Well, he said it, but what he really meant must be something else,” maybe we should ask, “Do we really know God’s essence, character, purposes, and plans well enough to second-guess what he really meant? Or might everything that we think would be unrighteous, unfair, or even deceptive in the physical evidences be his way of testing us the same way he tested Job, so that in the end we will simply let God be God and know that he’s given us just one job: to trust him?” On Judgment Day, if I was wrong to believe in recent six-day creation, God will correct me, but not chide me for trusting him too much. If I wrongly claim Genesis is a myth or parable or needs to be reinterpreted he may well say, “Why have you persecuted me, Saul? Why have you not believed and trusted me? Why have you led others away from the truth?” Other than the consequences of finding out I was wrong, I see no downside to simply believing God’s Word as it stands. I may be derided as a fool; fine. You may claim creationism acts as a hindrance to faith; I say the Spirit overcomes hindrances, and God’s strength is made perfect in our weakness.

God cannot lie, but he can do things intended to obscure the truth or even to mislead: He commanded Israel to lay an ambush against Ai. But an ambush is deceptive; it tricks the enemy into thinking a small feint is the main attack. It’s deceptive, but not a lie, for an army has no obligation to do what the enemy expects. (Just as God has no obligation to show us how he created the world). God himself used righteous deception when he created the sound of a mighty army, where none was coming, to scare away the Arameans (2 Kings 7), and made water look like blood to trick the Moabites into making a rash advance (2 Kings 3). Even Gideon’s divine battle plan, 300 men blowing on horns to convince the enemy they were surrounded and overwhelmed, was righteous deception. I could add the instances when lying prophets served God’s purposes, or when Rahab is praised for saving the spies with her lie, although he himself did not do the lying, and he never specifically praises Rahab’s lie. (But a rock isn’t a lie).

God’s law says do not kill. But we know there is such a thing as righteous killing (in self-defense or law-enforcement, for example). He tells us not to be angry, but there is also righteous anger. He commanded people not to work on the Sabbath, but Jesus showed people there was also righteous work on the Sabbath. So there is also righteous deception, when the deception serves higher purposes of God’s holy will.

So what purposes could be served by having a creation that was made to look old and natural? First, it nurtures faith, it exercises that ability to trust God simply because he says so, and not because we judge him believable, this time, and we’ll continue to believe him only until we find something that makes us justified in doubting him. God told Abraham to kill his son. Abraham could have said, “Well, that contradicts what I know about God’s character, therefore I shouldn’t trust what he said.” No, the hardest test was also the best way to build Abraham’s faith.

Proof and scientific certainty would war against faith. Israel in the wilderness had proof, and it just made them proud, self-entitled, and apt to judge God whenever he didn’t do things the way they thought he should. That would be us, if God gave us proof that he created this world in a way that science could never deny. So God gave us a natural-looking world. But how natural? It wouldn’t serve God’s purpose if there was a single thing in creation that proved beyond all possible counter-arguments that it wasn’t natural. To leave room for faith, there had to be room for doubt. But how could it look natural if it didn’t look old? And how could there be any possible natural explanation for our own existence without leaving evolution open at least as a possibility that isn't completely ruled out by the fossil evidence? But that requires fossils and rock layers and radioisotopes that conform to theory, and every time science finds one more thing that doesn’t disprove their theories, they take it as proof of their theories. And as long as they can find a reason in every single rock they turn over why we don’t have to believe God, they will use it as a reason why we really ought to doubt and disbelieve.

And that serves a second purpose of God, judgment on those who disbelieve, “So that hearing they may not hear and seeing they may not see.” (And if you think that couldn’t possibly apply to you because you’re one of God’s people, tell it to the Pharisees who thought they knew God well enough to judge that Jesus wasn’t doing what the Messiah must do).

God could easily have given us a world that left no room for doubt. Instead of a sun, he could have put his own throne in the sky (and that would have been easier than designing stars from scratch). He could have given us a world that is capable of sustaining itself but impossible to develop naturally. He didn’t. He chose to give us a natural looking world. That wasn’t easy to do. No matter which theory of origins you hold to, that in itself should tell us he wants us to trust in him as our creator by faith, not by sight, because he says so and not because the scientists say so. The question is, if a perfect God chooses to make a natural-looking world, how natural will it look? If God has any righteous reasons at all to make the world look natural, then, as he is the perfect artist, he is also the perfect reproduction-artist; it wouldn’t just look natural when you look at it from a distance and see birds and trees and stars, but also up close. If there was a single brush stroke that was wrong or if the canvas and paint were too new to be original, that would be a flaw in the reproduction. And God is flawless. It’s not deception, it is perfection of reproduction to serve all of God’s purposes simultaneously, to leave room for both faith and doubt, to give believers the opportunity to look like fools for God, cherishing his call to trust and follow him more than they care about the respect of the wise of this world, to pass judgment on those who doubt God’s Word, and to declare the glories of God in his wisdom, power, and goodness displayed in creation in a way that avoids taking away from us a kind of freedom of worship by giving us no alternative but to see God’s glory in creation.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All the scientific evidence points to an ancient earth. Furthermore, the fossil records support the slow change of species over time, such as dinosaurs to birds. *IF* these things are not true, it would follow that God deliberately created a world with false scientific data. Right? So then this begs the questions...

Did God lie?
And if God lied, why?

What do you believe?

There's no proof that dinosaurs evolved to birds, it's a speculation instead. A speculation, no matter how evident you think it is, stands only for a possibility. Science is about to bring the end-to-end process predictable for a claim to stand beyond doubt. "dinosaur to bird" can only be confirmed when this process can be predictably reproduced. Before that it's more of a scientifically assisted history research.

Even giving you the benefit of doubt that the nature can hammer a species, it says nothing about how the original species are coming from. If God created all the species at some point, it by no means says that God doesn't allow the nature to continue to hammer those created species. On the other hand, by our speculation we can only tell that the nature has the power to alter a species however we can't tell how a species existed now is originated, especially when adding in the factor of interbreeding.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,225
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,956.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
C14 has a half-life of 5,730 years; it PRESUMES constant concentrations. Question -- what caused the ice-age? Could something have blocked the sun and also reduced neutron-bombardment of nitrogen (less C14, apparent older age)? Yes.


(...best Carl Sagan voice...)

On this in particular. There are many dating methods, both relative and absolute that confirm the precision of radioactive dating. And dating methods, absolute dating methods, arent performed on samples that have been tampered with. If you took say, charcoal to a lab, most would reject results as credible, as you have removed it from its environment yourself. But beyond that, samples are analyzed on a molecular level, and those that have obstructed crystal latices, can also be rejected. Further, layers like the K-T boundary have been sampled independently using varying radioactive dating methods, by independent labs in different parts of the world, and have all reported the same results. That is to say that more than one dating method involving more than one rate of decay, on different samples, have yielded the same results.

An ice age caused by something blocking out the sun? Ice ages are attributed to milankovitch cycles. Cycles of the planets tilt, precession and eccentricity. They also have relation to the position of continents around the planet.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,225
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,956.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Geological structuring is circular, "we know the age of the rocks by the fossils, and we know the age of the fossils by the rocks!" Thousands of years of geological structuring happened in WEEKS at Mount Saint Helens.

Are there angular unconformities at mount st helens? No? ok then.

The rocks in the earth are not like deposits formed at mount st helens.

Also, relative dating methods in geology predate our understanding of the fossil succession. So, it isnt circular. Absolute dating does post date the fossil succession, but an understanding of fundamental laws like superposition and cross cutting relations gave geologists an idea of relative ages, prior to recognition of a succession of fossils in the same rocks.
 
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What do you think of feathered dinosaurs?

To me, there's no any valid proof as long as interbreeding is assumed to exist. ToE as a whole has to based on a ridiculous assumption that interbreeding doesn't exist. It is so because if interbreeding exists, we can't tell which species is from evolution and which is from interbreeding. So the so called evidence is all about incremental changes speculated (not proved) to be a possible event of evolution, but only under the ridiculous assumption that interbreeding never occurred.

In terms of creationism, what makes you think that God can't create feathered dinosaurs (if they did exist)?

Science on the other hand is about to bring up an end-to-end process predictable. A truth can be confirmed only when this end-to-end process can be predictably reproduced. So if it is claimed that "dinosaur is a from bird", then you will be given a bird for you to predictably reproduced a feathered dinosaur.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
To me, there's no any valid proof as long as interbreeding is assumed to exist. ToE as a whole has to based on a ridiculous assumption that interbreeding doesn't exist. It is so because if interbreeding exists, we can't tell which species is from evolution and which is from interbreeding. So the so called evidence is all about incremental changes speculated (not proved) to be a possible event of evolution, but only under the ridiculous assumption that interbreeding never occurred.

In terms of creationism, what makes you think that God can't create feathered dinosaurs (if they did exist)?

Science on the other hand is about to bring up an end-to-end process predictable. A truth can be confirmed only when this end-to-end process can be predictably reproduced. So if it is claimed that "dinosaur is a from bird", then you will be given a bird for you to predictably reproduced a feathered dinosaur.
Are you seriously suggesting that a dinosaur would be able to reproduce with a bird????? (And that's assuming that birds existed at the same time, which they didn't.)

It took almost 2 Billion years for a four legged dinosaur to evolve into a bird. You cannot expect scientists to reproduce a bird from a feathered dinosaur in a lab, even if a feathered dinosaur still existed.

God of course created feathered dinosaurs -- he used his process of evolution to do so.

However, one can make a hypothesis "If birds evolved from dinosaurs, we should expect to find fossils that progress in stages betweent dinosaur and bird." When the research is done, that is exactly what we find. Therefore the conclusion is that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

bird_evo.jpg
 
Upvote 0

RGW00

Active Member
Jul 29, 2017
180
78
25
Kentucky
✟15,682.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
You have said this on the wrong forums site buddy, haha. This is basically an evolution versus creation topic. I believe in both but to extents. For one thing, no one knows how old the world is, I don't care how knowledgeable you are about science or the Bible. It could be anywhere from 6000-2 billion. I don't concern myself with such matters but rather I focus on the actual creation of the Earth. God spoke it into existence. Period. Whether seven days are seven long ages or actual days doesn't matter to me.

First off, God is not a liar. Let's say we were to leave the Bible out of this discussion, what benefit would God get out of lying? If He wanted us to be close to him in this life, He would never lie or betray.

As far as the fossils and the scientific evidence regarding them, technology glitches all the time, and we didn't even realize smoking was a problem until years after we did it.

The pieces of evolution are natural selection, that definitely has to be true. But I would be careful what you put this on because this is very controversial.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,170
US
✟1,440,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The reason the Father cannot lie is simple: Whatever He says, is.

If the Father were to say, "Earth's moon is made of feta cheese," the elemental structure of the moon would change to feta cheese. Not only that, but because the Father is extemporally simultaneous, once He said, "Earth's moon is made of feta cheese," it will always have been made of feta cheese. There would be no memory in creation of it having ever been anything else.

So God cannot lie because creation will always conform to His word.

If God wants someone to be deceived, He must employ an agent to do so, such as a "lying spirit."

Now, if the question is, "Has God ever directed that anyone be deceived?" we have the clear answer in 2 Chronicles 18 and 1 Kings 22 (and implications in other verses).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SolomonVII
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
All the scientific evidence points to an ancient earth. Furthermore, the fossil records support the slow change of species over time, such as dinosaurs to birds. *IF* these things are not true, it would follow that God deliberately created a world with false scientific data. Right? So then this begs the questions...

Did God lie?
And if God lied, why?

The scriptures say the mountains are ancient and everlasting.
So I don't see any lies.
 
Upvote 0