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.
If rocks can be destroyed by catastrophes, can they be created by catastrophes?
Zero --- and I'm not about to start, either.Rank? I'm sorry, again, how many years did you spend studying geology?
Zero --- and I'm not about to start, either.
I'm quoting from Appendix 2 of Henry M. Morris' Defender's Study Bible:'Sactly!
If things can occur via natural process alone, then there's no reason to assume it's the result of the supernatural.
The more viable possibilities of something occurring entirely naturally there are, the less possible the supernatural becomes.
The origins controversy is not fundamentally a scientific issue, but rather a life-and-death struggle between the only two basic world-views, each embracing the origin, destiny and meaning of the cosmos and all things in the cosmos - material, biological, and spiritual.
Creation vs Evolution
1. Self-existing eternal Creator vs self-originating or self-existing cosmos
2. Cosmos created by divine fiat vs cosmos organized by itself
3. Basic systems completed in the past by supernatural processes vs. all systems developed by still-continuing natural processes
4. Net changes in created systems "downward" toward disorganization vs net changes in evolving systems "upward" toward higher organization
Since each model of origins entails a comprehensive world-view, embracing the whole of reality, each is basically philosophical or, better, religious. The canard that evolution is science and creation is religion is obviously false since it is impossible for scientists actually to observe or repeat unique events of the past. Evolution is based on the premise of naturalism, not science. In fact, evolution is the underlying premise of more religions than creation.
I'm quoting from Appendix 2 of Henry M. Morris' Defender's Study Bible:
The specific act is called creatio ex nihilo.If you can explain how...
No, it's not.But as they cannot explain how "x did it", it is a rather useless "explanation".
Creatio ex nihilo is a viable bottom-line explanation that even scientists can understand.
If you want to inject "accuracy" into the picture, God said His creation was "very good" --- meaning pluperfect.Then don't claim your alleged "divine knowledge" is more accurate than geology.
Because you know sweet Fanny Adams about geology.
I don't doubt that one bit.All I got from that was: Yay for false dichotomies and strawmen!
If you want to inject "accuracy" into the picture, God said His creation was "very good" --- meaning pluperfect.
You want the how?Again, a useless explanation if you can't explain how.
You want the how?
God spoke, and it happened.
So do nuclear-age scientists.So?
Bronze age cavemen realised that that their world wasn't perfect.
So do nuclear-age scientists.
Who knew it first?
But creatio ex nihilo is.How did it happen?
"It happened." isn't a valid explanation.
You're not God, and you're not omnipotent.I speak all the time, and the only thing that happens, is I get told to "shut up.".
I can think of two: Adam and Eve.I can't think of a single person who would've ever thought their world was perfect.
I don't need one.It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work that out...
But creatio ex nihilo is.
You're not God, and you're not omnipotent.
I can think of two: Adam and Eve.
I don't need one.
Bingo ---Creatio ex nihilo explains nothing.
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?