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.
Even if that was an accurate characterization of the science (which it is not) it only gets you to deism, which is a far cry from the God of fundamentalist evangelical Protestantism.There actually is evidence for God. However, the evidence is not found through empirical measurements. It is found through logic and putting together the pieces that science have already discovered. Advances in micro biology and organic chemistry have revealed that the possibility of the spontaneous generation of life is practically impossible. The advances in astronomy and astrophysics have revealed that the universe has a definite beginning which requires a supernatural cause. Even if every religion in the world were to be scientifically proven to be false, it still would require more faith to reject deism as a possibility.
No, I'm not saying that. God created a human from inanimate matter but puny science will never be able to explain how that happened.Are you saying that nothing on the molecular or chemical level happened when Adam was created?
Yes, the YEC brigade denounces a progressive creationist like Hugh Ross - his "sin" is accepting irrefutable scientific discoveries pertaining to the history of the earth. As far as I know, Ross rejects Darwinian evolution as an explanation for the history of life on earth and believes God miraculously initiated and directed the progress of creation, so why you disqualify him as a creationist in this thread's context, I know not.Dr. Ross is not a creationist within the context of this discussion. In fact, he has been denounced by the major creationist ministries such as Answers in Genesis and Creation Research International.
Which is why I said:Even if that was an accurate characterization of the science (which it is not) it only gets you to deism, which is a far cry from the God of fundamentalist evangelical Protestantism.
Hence, with the current scientific discoveries, it takes more faith to be an atheist than a deist. Because in doing so requires the dismissal of the logical conclusion derived from current scientific discoveries.Even if every religion in the world were to be scientifically proven to be false, it still would require more faith to reject deism as a possibility.
. But just-so explanations aren’t evidence for anything other than you’ve got an imagination. I believe that God created the universe but I can’t prove that . I guess it just doesn’t bother me muchWhich is why I said:
Hence, with the current scientific discoveries, it takes more faith to be an atheist than a deist. Because in doing so requires the dismissal of the logical conclusion derived from current scientific discoveries.
I disqualify him as a creationist for the very reason that he does accept irrefutable scientific discoveries, instead of denouncing them as the spawn of a world-wide atheistic conspiracy of scientists to deny Christ. So do the major creationist ministries (Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, etc.) disqualify him.Yes, the YEC brigade denounces a progressive creationist like Hugh Ross - his "sin" is accepting irrefutable scientific discoveries pertaining to the history of the earth. As far as I know, Ross rejects Darwinian evolution as an explanation for the history of life on earth and believes God miraculously initiated and directed the progress of creation, so why you disqualify him as a creationist in this thread's context, I know not.
I used to believe silly stuff like that - until I stopped reading YEC nonsense and started studying what real science says. There are plenty of devout Christian scientists who accept the same scientific evidence as atheists do - how do you explain that?I disqualify him as a creationist for the very reason that he does accept irrefutable scientific discoveries, instead of denouncing them as the spawn of a world-wide atheistic conspiracy of scientists to deny Christ.
They disqualify anyone who doesn't conform to their Dark Ages view of the world and their shallow, outdated, unimaginative, fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture.So do the major creationist ministries (Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, etc.) disqualify him.
I lack the faith to believe that nature alone can make a living organism arise from inanimate matter and that nature alone can transform a dinosaur into a bird.Hence, with the current scientific discoveries, it takes more faith to be an atheist than a deist. Because in doing so requires the dismissal of the logical conclusion derived from current scientific discoveries.
I disqualify him as a creationist for the very reason that he does accept irrefutable scientific discoveries, instead of denouncing them as the spawn of a world-wide atheistic conspiracy of scientists to deny Christ. So do the major creationist ministries (Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, etc.) disqualify him.
How does Hugh Ross say these things are specifically created? What is the process involved?
I looked more into the OP. Apparently Quantum mechanics, and theory are mechanisms that Ross embraces for his Creation theory.<snip>
I agree that the logical conclusions are not "proof" by any means. There are limitations to the arguments. First, as you mentioned, it does not prove God exists. Second, it doesn't prove or disprove the existence of any god/gods to include the God of Abraham. The existence of smoke doesn't prove the existence of fire. But any reasonable person can conclude that smoke is very real evidence of a possible fire that any reasonable person would investigate. Likewise, because the logic doesn't prove God's existence, it doesn't necessarily mean that the logical arguments cannot be classified as "evidence". Because it is evidence that points to the possibility of the existence of God. Even if it is one that is now completely uninvolved in our universe (deism). What the evidence demonstrates is that science has revealed that the existence of God is a very rational and logical possibility that ought not be dismissed. To reject this rational and logical possibility requires sacrificing logic for faith.. But just-so explanations aren’t evidence for anything other than you’ve got an imagination. I believe that God created the universe but I can’t prove that . I guess it just doesn’t bother me much
I don't understand what this has to do with the OP?While the left over radiation from the big bang, the 'cosmic background radiation' is thought to be from about 400,000 yrs after the big bang, here's something more localized, the currently oldest observed galaxy:
GN-z11 is a high-redshift galaxy found in the constellation Ursa Major. GN-z11 is currently the oldest and most distant known galaxy in the observable universe.[4]GN-z11 has a spectroscopic redshift of z = 11.09, which corresponds to a proper distance of approximately 32 billion light-years (9.8 billion parsecs).[5][note 1]
The object's name is derived from its location in the GOODS-North field of galaxies and its high cosmological redshift number (GN + z11).[6] GN-z11 is observed as it existed 13.4 billion years ago, just 400 million years after the Big Bang;[2][7][8] as a result, GN-z11's distance is sometimes inappropriately[9]reported as 13.4 billion light-years, its light-travel distance measurement.[10][11]
GN-z11 - Wikipedia
That's all very well, but it does not address the OP.I agree that the logical conclusions are not "proof" by any means. There are limitations to the arguments. First, as you mentioned, it does not prove God exists. Second, it doesn't prove or disprove the existence of any god/gods to include the God of Abraham. The existence of smoke doesn't prove the existence of fire. But any reasonable person can conclude that smoke is very real evidence of a possible fire that any reasonable person would investigate. Likewise, because the logic doesn't prove God's existence, it doesn't necessarily mean that the logical arguments cannot be classified as "evidence". Because it is evidence that points to the possibility of the existence of God. Even if it is one that is now completely uninvolved in our universe (deism). What the evidence demonstrates is that science has revealed that the existence of God is a very rational and logical possibility that ought not be dismissed. To reject this rational and logical possibility requires sacrificing logic for faith.
I'll address the OP:That's all very well, but it does not address the OP.
I'll address the OP:
I pray mankind never finds out this side of the Rapture.
Because if he did, scientists would try to use it to destroy Israel.
But I'm confident they never will, as God in His wisdom withheld that knowledge.
Satan, of course, is after that knowledge and wants it badly; despite one poster here saying he was "just curious."
I didn't know you were a preterist!End Times happened centuries ago. You missed it.
These discussions always digress (and that one branched from post #136), but if you would like to read my response to the OP, that would please me, it's here (link takes to that post):I don't understand what this has to do with the OP?
when we see a watch on a far planet we dont need a mechanism to conclude that such a watch was designed. the same is true with living things.Once again I see creationists claiming that "creation" is a valid explanation for life on Earth.
Therefore creationists should be able to explain the mechanisms, processes, forces, etc, involved in the creation and/or modification of living things on Earth via a designer.
Disclaimer: Not interested in Bible quotes. I know what the Bible says and it doesn't explain anything. If you want to invoke God "speaking" things into existence or shaping people out of clay, you need to explain the mechanism, processes, forces, etc behind such an act.
. It’s because Goddidit is a belief.
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?