Creationism

[Arikay]

So, as you can see, many creationists say they have evidence but it never appears.

Most of the evidence that does appear seems to be either false, or a missunderstanding of the science behind it.

A litteral translation of the bible is pretty much the only "Evidence" out there, and its a belief and not actual Evidence.

 

[yec_12]

All the anti-creationists i am having trouble understanding the difference between me believing the bible literally and you believing scientists. How do you know for sure that this "factual evidnece" is the truth i dont think there is any one amoung us who can determine the truth.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 01:29 PM notto said this in Post #17
Because of the constant speed of light, and the distance to the area they are looking at, astronomers know that the light has traveled several million years to get here. The objects in those pictures of the young universe would look much different today if you were actually there to see them.

If your looking at a young universe, then the light would have had to take 14 billion years to get here, according to science. What that means is that light is traveling at about the same rate as we are expanding. By we, I mean the earth.

It took something like billion years before light formed. So the universe is 14 billion years old or that would be 2 billion for every one of the seven days in Genesis.

Actually, the way it works out is that day eight, the day we are in now, is 100 million years. Day seven is 200 million years, day six is 400 million years, day five is 800 million years, day four is 1.6 billion years, day three is 3.2 billion years, day two is 6.4 billion years and day one of course would be  12.8 billion years. Plus the Billion years before light began to form works out to be something like 13.8 billion years for the age of the universe.

This means the earth was actually formed on the third day, as far as the waters and the dry land being seperated about 5 billion years ago. It just all depends on your observation point, and if your looking forward or backward in time. God is looking forward in time, we are looking back in time. So His perspective is totally different than our perspective is.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 01:50 PM Gooch's dad said this in Post #20

john, I have a BS in physics and an MS in quantum electronics. Those physics explanations of Schroeder's are nonsense.

Let me see, you have a BS and a MS. Dr. Gerald Schroeder has a BS, MS & Phd. from MIT. I will take the word of a MIT PHd over a MS from where did you get your degree?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 03:56 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #23 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=675364#post675364)

It took something like billion years before light formed. So the universe is 14 billion years old or that would be 2 billion for every one of the seven days in Genesis.

Actually, the way it works out is that day eight, the day we are in now, is 100 million years. Day seven is 200 million years, day six is 400 million years, day five is 800 million years, day four is 1.6 billion years, day three is 3.2 billion years, day two is 6.4 billion years and day one of course would be  12.8 billion years. Plus the Billion years before light began to form works out to be something like 13.8 billion years for the age of the universe.

Problem is, literal events in Genesis don't line up with such a time-scale. The sun, for example, was not formed billions of years after the Earth. Likewise, the oldest known fowl, whales, etc are far, far younger than 800 million years old.

 

[Arikay]

Its truth because so far, it has held up to all the tests and scrutinizing. anything that doesnt hold up, is tossed out. This evidence is found by studing the earth, comparing findings, and doing experiments.

creationist "evidence" is based on opinion and belief.

Today at 12:22 PM yec_12 said this in Post #22 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=675307#post675307)

All the anti-creationists i am having trouble understanding the difference between me believing the bible literally and you believing scientists. How do you know for sure that this "factual evidnece" is the truth i dont think there is any one amoung us who can determine the truth.

 

[Cantuar]

The impression I get from British Christians is that they believe in God and science; it doesn't seem to threaten their faith to believe that a higher power directs real forces like evolution.

There are creationists at work in Britain, however; remember the controversy about Emmanuel College last year? They were teaching young-Earth creationism ther eand the head of science was on record as strongly supporting it - and Tony Blair, when asked about this in Parliament, refused to condemn the teaching on young-Earthism as science. Check out the education pages of the Christian Instituite for some interesting stuff about how they want education in Britian to be changed. They did have a science education page but it was taken down after the Emmanuel College controversy. It advocated teaching science based on the biblical creation, fall, and redemption, and it encouraged teachers to push young earth creationism.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 03:22 PM yec_12 said this in Post #22 
i dont think there is any one amoung us who can determine the truth.

Only those who actually have the Holy Spirit of truth for their teacher are able to know the truth. Man has some knowledge, some evidence apart from God. But he does not have the wisdom to know how to explain the evidence.

The imagination can be used for good or evil. It can be used to honor and glorify God, or the imagination can be used in a way that does not honor God at all. This is the wickedness of man.

Genesis 6:5
    And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.





 

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 04:03 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #25

Problem is, literal events in Genesis don't line up with such a time-scale. The sun, for example, was not formed billions of years after the Earth. Likewise, the oldest known fowl, whales, etc are far, far younger than 1.6 billion years old.

Wow, I am impressed, you must have put 2 seconds of thought into that one. Give it up and call yourself lazy.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 04:05 PM Cantuar said this in Post #27 
young earth creationism.

Young earth creationism is outdated, there was nothing wrong with it, in it's time, but now new information has come along. Knowledge has increased and we know more than what we did before.

 

[Arikay]

hmm. as usual, John turns the conversation away from the topic and directs it towards the other person.

but im sure, after about 5 pages of back and fourth (after this) John will then say it was a joke and to lighten up.

Today at 01:13 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #29 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=675413#post675413)

Wow, I am impressed, you must have put 2 seconds of thought into that one. Give it up and call yourself lazy.

 

[Cantuar]

Only those who actually have the Holy Spirit of truth for their teacher are able to know the truth.

Followers of other religions would disagree with you. Then we come down to the problem of determining whose truth is the real truth.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 04:13 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #29 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=675413#post675413)

Wow, I am impressed, you must have put 2 seconds of thought into that one. Give it up and call yourself lazy.

I figured it was such an obvious problem, you might have missed it.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 04:03 PM Arikay said this in Post #26



creationist "evidence" is based on opinion and belief.

You need to qualify what you mean by 'creationist "evidence"'

There are a lot of different schools of thought on creationism. To generalize and lump them all together is a little short sighted.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 04:22 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #33

I figured it was such an obvious problem, you might have missed it.

Nope, sorry it is not obvious at all, and you did miss it. But I would not expect everyone to be able to understand the teaching of a Phd from MIT, even though he does all he can to make it understandable. Actually, the problem is, someone has to want to be taught. The best teacher in all the world, can not teach something to someone how does not want to learn it.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 04:21 PM Arikay said this in Post #31 

but im sure, after about 5 pages of back and fourth (after this) John will then say it was a joke and to lighten up.

Actually, no, I do not believe that Schroeder is a joke. He is backed up by Zola Levitt, so if one goes down, they both go down. You may or may not accept his theory, but I think it is worth taking the time to understand it a little bit.

 

[Arikay]

Well, since none of them have shown real evidence, I can lump them all together into the "lack of evidence" category.

Today at 01:24 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #34 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=675435#post675435)

You need to qualify what you mean by 'creationist "evidence"'

There are a lot of different schools of thought on creationism. To generalize and lump them all together is a little short sighted.

 

[Arikay]

John: you missed the point. I was talking about you calling him lazy, please actually pay attention to the thread.

Today at 01:32 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #36 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=675456#post675456)

Actually, no, I do not believe that Schroeder is a joke. He is backed up by Zola Levitt, so if one goes down, they both go down. You may or may not accept his theory, but I think it is worth taking the time to understand it a little bit.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 04:03 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #25  the oldest known fowl, whales, etc are far, far younger than 1.6 billion years old.

1.6 plus .8 plus .4 plus .2 equals 3 billion years. What age do you assign to them? My math could be slightly off, I am just using this as a example of the theory. I am not actually useing his math on this.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 04:36 PM Arikay said this in Post #38

John: you missed the point. I was talking about you calling him lazy, please actually pay attention to the thread.

Yeah, of course when you call someone "lazy" it is a joke. If it were not a joke it would be a violation of the rules.

But like I said, for someone to learn something, they have to want to learn it. You can not teach a theory to someone who is not willing to put forth some effort to learn the theory.