Project 86 said:
Yep, that's pretty much what I thought I said.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Project 86 said:You would be an OEC* then.
*Old Earth Creationist
theotherguy said:I just come off a YEC forum, where a load of guys have been chucked off this forum for holding Creationist views (their words, not mine!) so I was wondering how many creationists are actually left here?
I'll check in as a Young Biological Creationist (6 literal days, 6,118 ya), and Old Upper Heaven with an unfinished Earth (covered with water & thick cloud layer). My reference for this position is at: www.genesistruth.org/Genesisday1_4.htmtheotherguy said:.... I was wondering how many creationists are actually left here?
I have found some exceptions to this, which very rewarding and worth the negative. If nothing else, this forum represents the world views that we'll find in our community and hopefully help us prepare for witnessing to others. Please hang in there, we need you. <><SBG said:I think the main reason why it becomes unattractive to post here is because when you do post, no one actually listens to what is said, instead they look to find what they can refute. There is no real communication here.
I'm here...; What did you want to discuss? The main thing we talked about before was the source of light before day four of the creation week, which I say was from God, and you had a scientific approach to it as I recall. I think we'll just have to have our own opinion on that issue. I think Biblically, the sun wasn't in its current place until day four (whether or not it existed prior to that).Knowledge3 said:I am a pretty adept Creationist..I had a PM conversation with Keyarch, I wonder where he is. I would like to discuss with him.....hopefully
keyarch said:I'm here...; What did you want to discuss? The main thing we talked about before was the source of light before day four of the creation week, which I say was from God, and you had a scientific approach to it as I recall. I think we'll just have to have our own opinion on that issue. I think Biblically, the sun wasn't in its current place until day four (whether or not it existed prior to that).
The early church used this as a powerful apologetic against pagan sun worship.theywhosowintears said:Very Interesting God created light before the sun.
In fact Revelation makes a point that there will be no sun in heaven as God (Father & Son) will be the light.
Also when talking about the Tree of Life earlier it is interesting to note how many similarities there are between Eden and heaven; the Tree of Life is by the river of life flowing from the throne; was it always there and that makes eden heaven or did God move it off of the earth (as Genesis gives an earthly location for Eden?) the mind boggles.
Anyway NT sources like Revelation and OT prophecy are great places to back up Genesis as they make sense in conjuntion with literal 6 day creation.
I still struggle to comprehend how TE's can interprete scripture the way they do. AAAAGH. lol I guess God can teach me patience through my talks with them.
keyarch said:I'm here...; What did you want to discuss? The main thing we talked about before was the source of light before day four of the creation week, which I say was from God, and you had a scientific approach to it as I recall. I think we'll just have to have our own opinion on that issue. I think Biblically, the sun wasn't in its current place until day four (whether or not it existed prior to that).
Knowledge3 said:Hey keyarch!
The evolutionists I have been debating at II will not combine their basic scientific principle of including with God's purpose in it. I believe the Creator as a master of physics and metaphysics. Evolution in a sense,relies on a purely random,spotaneous, and a Theory that is now exactly NOT set in stone.
Do you follow?
I will no doubt look forward to dicussing you about the source of light and how it relates to evolution. The II'ers deny the Light argument as a logical fallacy. I have begun to develop or work toward a theory that God's logic does not equal or is constrained to the the basic logic of mankind as we know it.
mhess13 said:The early church used this as a powerful apologetic against pagan sun worship.
Yes. No matter what you say to them, they will not see origins from a Biblical perspective until God changes their heart. For them, seeing is believing; but in reality, believing is seeing. Having faith before evidence is counter to their intellectual experience, and is what will keep them blind.Knowledge3 said:The evolutionists I have been debating at II will not combine their basic scientific principle of manking with God's purpose in it. It relies on a purely random,spotaneous, and a Theory that is now exactly set in stone.
Do you follow?
I will no doubt look forward to dicussing you about the source of light and how it relates to evolution. The
I dont follow how the source of light relates to evolution. Since God is TRUE and the source of all light (whether by his Word or an object like the sun) and macro-evolution is FALSE, there is no relationship between the two, and any attempt to make one is futile. I fail to see the need to fit the Biblical account of Creation into an evolutionary/scientific paradigm since they are opposing views to begin with. They cannot BOTH be true.II'ers deny the Light argument as a logical fallacy. I have begun to develop or work toward a theory that God's logic does not equal or is constrained to the the basic logic of mankind as we know it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?