- May 17, 2021
- 1,121
- 387
- 38
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Divorced
There is no credible data supporting the existence of god(s).
Are you familiar with the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ?
Upvote
0
There is no credible data supporting the existence of god(s).
Yes I am. And its severly lacking.Are you familiar with the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ?
Yes I am. And its severly lacking.
Really really wishing something to be true does not make it true.
You wanna preach there are subforas for that, this isnt one of them.Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Many people have died for what they believed to be true, but how many have died for what they knew to be false? The apostles were in a position to know for a fact whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, and they willingly died for their testimony.
Even if one were on the fence about the evidence for Jesus' resurrection, Pascal's wager would be reason enough to decide on the side of faith.
Nowhere does the Bible say that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
It's an assumption based on adding up the genealogies of the Bible, while assuming that the earth began with the creation of Adam and that there are no gaps in the genealogies.
Whereas Romans 5 says that death entered the world through Adam, this refers to human death, not animal death. If it were proven that the Bible requires belief in young earth creationism, I'd seriously consider it, but not without some difficulties.
If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, is there any evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed? The fossil record seems to contradict that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
Don't assume every YEC believes in an earth younger then 10 thousand years.If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, how do you explain fossil fuels? Are there any petroleum geologists who are also young earth creationists?
There is a very interesting book called Starlight and Time by Dr. Russell Humphreys that may interest you.How do you explain distant starlight? Not only that, how do you explain the remnants of supernovae? If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, wouldn't that mean the skies contain evidence of supernovae that never happened? How would that square with Psalm 19:1?
Even Answers in Genesis seems to admit that there are supernovae from before 10,000 years ago
I am not a young earth creationist because these and other concerns have not been resolved, at least not to my satisfaction. Are there any young earth creationists who are able to resolve these concerns?
But the simple explanation is that God stretched out the stars billions of light years apart as easily as he did everything else. The light would have traveled from where God created them and named them to wherever he placed them, which I imagine all happened very quickly.
Since SNR remnants with ages much older than 7000 years are known, the supposed lack of old SNRs probably is not a good argument for recent origin. I discourage recent creationists from using it.
Are Old Supernova Remnants Really Missing? Re-Evaluating a Well-Known Young-Universe Argument
There is a difference between distant starlight and supernova remnants. They are two different problems that young earth creationists need to account for.
Then why are you a YEC?Something I can actually agree with.
From a former post of mine:There is a difference between distant starlight and supernova remnants. They are two different problems that young earth creationists need to account for.
I believe, as do others, that the plan of salvation is in the stars.Humble_Disciple said:How would that square with Psalm 19:1?
The Bible says, from beginning to end, that Adam is the historical father of all humanity, from whom we inherited sin and death. There are numerous passages of scripture which wouldn't make sense if Adam weren't a historical person, including Jesus' genealogy in Luke.
Secondly, Genesis says that God created the animals "each according to its kind." This seems to clearly contradict evolution.
Lastly, the evidence for natural selection acting on random mutation being responsible for the complexity and diversity of life is rather flimsy. Oscillations in the size of finch beaks and the coloring of peppered moths doesn't demonstrate the capability of evolution to produce such large-scale transitions as fish to amphibian, reptile to bird, ape to man, etc.
Furthermore, there are serious deficiencies in the fossil record. Here is a non-creationist scientist in a moment of honesty about the human fossil record:
Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution
Please don't assume that, just because I don't believe in evolution, I must be ignorant of science. I would at least like to believe that I know more about the evidence presented for evolution than the average person. I took anthropology in college and had to write papers on it.
The reason why I created this thread is to give young earth creationists the opportunity to convince me that the creation is less than 10,000 years old. I'm not trying to debate evolution right now. I'm giving young earth creationists the chance to state their case.
Pascale wager is why I panicked and started hidingContemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Many people have died for what they believed to be true, but how many have died for what they knew to be false? The apostles were in a position to know for a fact whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, and they willingly died for their testimony.
Even if one were on the fence about the evidence for Jesus' resurrection, Pascal's wager would be reason enough to decide on the side of faith.
There is Biblical testimony that they did.If the earth is less than 10,000 years old, is there any evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed?
The fossil record has been stretched out to make it look like it developed over a long period of time.Humble_Disciple said:The fossil record seems to contradict that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
The Bible says, from beginning to end, that Adam is the historical father of all humanity, from whom we inherited sin and death. There are numerous passages of scripture which wouldn't make sense if Adam weren't a historical person, including Jesus' genealogy in Luke.
Human descriptions and memories of dragons do seem to indicate that humans saw and interacted with large, frightening, lizard-like creatures in the past.
I don’t mind an old-earth Creation belief. But archeology indicates that human civilization arose out of Iraq. And spread outward from there. How many thousands of years can be debated, but I do see fossils as evidence of a flood. Creatures in the sea would have been fossilized first, followed by larger land creatures as the waters rose, followed by humans.
It mentions them. What they are, though, is debatable.
Study “out of place fossils”. It’s a cool phenomenon. And humans, being smarter, and more agile, could have easily climbed to higher ground more easily than large animals.
But again, I didn't create this thread to debate evolution. Instead, I'm giving young earth creationists the chance to state their case.
Not all YEC believe in 6 thousand years. I tend to feel it is more 15 but I have heard of a few who stretch things to 20 and some even to 50.
But no matter how many thousands of years a YEC gives it is nothing compared to the timeline believed by evolutionists.
Couldn't God create stars at any stage of development? Couldn't God create a star set to have a supernova tomorrow or the next day if he wanted to?
There is a very interesting book called Starlight and Time by Dr. Russell Humphreys that may interest you.
But the simple explanation is that God stretched out the stars billions of light years apart as easily as he did everything else. The light would have traveled from where God created them and named them to wherever he placed them, which I imagine all happened very quickly.
There is a difference between distant starlight and supernova remnants. They are two different problems that young earth creationists need to account for.
So that's why I believe God moved the light from the exploding star forward across time to show up on the earth in 1987.
He's telling us, through this supernova, that He destroyed Sanduleak's home.
So, I consider, if the earth was "subjected" to "futility", it could have been in a different state before that . . . possibly in an incorruptible spiritual state.
If this is so, those six days were not like days we have now, if the spiritual state of things during creation was not like the state of creation now.
In any case, I don't assume things have always worked by predictable physical laws. I doubt our present physical laws just did some big bang in the middle of eternity; why then and not sooner if they always have done what is predictable??
So, I am open about what God knows He has been doing If He resurrected Jesus Christ's body into His glorious body on the third day, and if during the Rapture we will be resurrected "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" (see 1 Corinthians 15:50-54), God could have done anything in less than six days, while creation was not in a fully physical state like it is now.
Many people have died for what they believed to be true, but how many have died for what they knew to be false?
The apostles were in a position to know for a fact whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, and they willingly died for their testimony.
It does say God created everything in six days.
And our Apostle Paul says creation was subjected to "futility", but later "will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." (in Romans 8:20-21)
"For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." (Romans 8:20-21)
So, I consider, if the earth was "subjected" to "futility", it could have been in a different state before that . . . possibly in an incorruptible spiritual state. And so could have been all the nonhuman living beings whom God created. But then Adam and Eve fell. And if all but Adam and Eve had remained in the incorruptible state, Adam and Eve could have been unable to relate with creation other than themselves. So, God could have brought all else down to Adam and Eve's level of existence so they could function on this earth the way it is.
If this is so, those six days were not like days we have now, if the spiritual state of things during creation was not like the state of creation now. And we see how ones had long lives, starting with Adam, even though they had sinned. But sin, I see, gradually shortened people's lives, with time. And possibly the earth was also changing down in quality, during that time . . . to how the earth is now with its present apparent laws of how nature works.
So, I do not assume that creation of God has always been like it is now. While there was a different condition of creation, much larger reptiles could have lived and thrived before Adam and Eve, for all I know. Ones now have said they think they might have been warm-blooded, even, or some of them. But the entry of sin could have started to bring all that down, while laws were still different, and a lot of that vegetation could have been cooked into oil and coal. And the Flood could have been as the earth was still cooling down, or spiritually changing down, somehow.
In any case, I don't assume things have always worked by predictable physical laws. I doubt our present physical laws just did some big bang in the middle of eternity; why then and not sooner if they always have done what is predictable??
So, I am open about what God knows He has been doing If He resurrected Jesus Christ's body into His glorious body on the third day, and if during the Rapture we will be resurrected "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" (see 1 Corinthians 15:50-54), God could have done anything in less than six days, while creation was not in a fully physical state like it is now.