Does believing Genesis is wrong make me a bad Christian?

[Livingstones2020]

you do realize that a woman who has never had a ..... can get pregnant from what we used to call heavy petting .

I’ve said repeatedly that if natural phenomena conflicts with the Bible I’m going with natural phenomena and I don’t particularly care whether you like that or not

Yeah, okay. Here is the problem with that. You are going with man's fallible opinions and pretty much saying that science and nature is all there is. But I am starting with God's Word, the source that claims that there was someone that was there from the beginning, Who made everything in 6 literal days, Who doesn't tell a lie, and have people write it down to be passed down from generation to generation.

So you start with man's word, and I start from God's Word.

 

[coffee4u]

. Creationists seem to think that just because someone is an atheist that that makes him/her wrong and if someone is a creationist that makes him/her correct especially when it comes to science. And that’s definitely not true .Atheist Richard Dawkins is correct about evolution whether you agree with his stance on religion or not. Creationists Kent Hovind and Ken Ham are blatantly incorrect about science in general whether you are Christian or not . Biologists Francis Collins and Ken Miller are both devout Christians. They both accept an old earth and evolution and their science information is correct. None of their religious beliefs matter to the science information they present . Their science information is either confirmed as correct or not.

In my view they are not only 100% wrong but deluded and hoodwinked by Satan.

I am not saying that Ken Ham is 100% correct either.

I am not arguing from a scientific standpoint nor am I interested in science, I am only concerned by Doctrine and Sola Scriptura. You and others can argue over science. Nor do I care what letters somebody has after there name or how famous they are, that impresses me 0%.

 

[Brightmoon]

Mans fallible opinions ? Lol . The earth is old and evolution happens. I don’t live in creationist fantasy world . Unless........ creationists can come up with verifiable facts of their claims . Which I’ve been asking about for 30 years now. I’m not holding my breath at this point .

 

[Livingstones2020]

Mans fallible opinions ? Lol . The earth is old and evolution happens. I don’t live in creationist fantasy world . Unless........ creationists can come up with verifiable facts of their claims . Which I’ve been asking about for 30 years now. I’m not holding my breath at this point .

Like I said before, I rather believe what God said He did over what man thinks He did. Purely simple. God said that He created the Heaven and Earth is 6 literal days, not that long ago and we are created in His own image.

 

[Brightmoon]

You’re forgetting a tiny little detail . The Nature that you’re forgetting about was created by God . If Nature says one thing and the Bible say something different , I’m going with Nature . You’re calling that man’s opinions and that’s silly . Mainstream Scientists only report what Nature says about itself

 

[Livingstones2020]

You’re forgetting a tiny little detail . The Nature that you’re forgetting about was created by God . If Nature says one thing and the Bible say something different , I’m going with Nature . You’re calling that man’s opinions and that’s silly . Mainstream Scientists only report what Nature says about itself

I see. I didn't realize there were extra books in the Bible, called 1 Nature and 2 Nature. I am still calling them "Man's opinions" because that is what they are. And if God says in the Bible of how He created the world, I am going to trust it over what man can come up with. But like I said, you are free to choose what "scientists" says and how they come to their conclusions because they have a worldview. I too have a worldview and it starts with Genesis 1.

 

[Job 33:6]

I see. I didn't realize there were extra books in the Bible, called 1 Nature and 2 Nature. I am still calling them "Man's opinions" because that is what they are. And if God says in the Bible of how He created the world, I am going to trust it over what man can come up with. But like I said, you are free to choose what "scientists" says and how they come to their conclusions because they have a worldview. I too have a worldview and it starts with Genesis 1.

Things like the age of the earth are no more man's opinion than gravity is. Man didn't just invent gravity, it is simply nature as it was created.

 

[Livingstones2020]

Things like the age of the earth are no more man's opinion than gravity is. Man didn't just invent gravity, it is simply nature as it was created.

There is a problem with that theory though. We can test gravity because we exist in the present, at least I hope we all are. But with millions of years, we cannot directly test because we weren't there. Science is all about testing, observing, and repeating. We can test, observe, and repeat the theory of gravity. But can we test, observe, or repeat millions of years? Unless you have a time machine that travels in the past, no we cannot.

 

[Job 33:6]

There is a problem with that theory though. We can test gravity because we exist in the present, at least I hope we all are. But with millions of years, we cannot directly test because we weren't there. Science is all about testing, observing, and repeating. We can test, observe, and repeat the theory of gravity. But can we test, observe, or repeat millions of years? Unless you have a time machine that travels in the past, no we cannot.

If you see two cars smashed on the side of the road, you don't need a time machine to understand that a collision occurred in the past. Its surprisingly simple to understand the past, even without needing to be alive to see it.

View attachment 278811
For the below photo for example, you don't need to be present to understand events of the past, nor do we even need to re enact the accident.

 

[Job 33:6]

 

[Job 33:6]

Here are two more examples.

Can anyone figure out what happened in the past with the train?

Can we figure out how the footprints came to be without needing a time machine?

 

[Job 33:6]

Understanding an old earth is similarly simple as the examples above. Simply by looking at "scars" of the past, it's easy to understand events that occurred. And we don't need a time machine.

 

[Livingstones2020]

Understanding an old earth is similarly simple as the examples above. Simply by looking at "scars" of the past, it's easy to understand events that occurred. And we don't need a time machine.

Actually, here is the problem with your reasoning. Do you accept uniformitarianism? That is the things that we see in the present happened gradually in the past? Because according to the pictures you posted, there is no uniformitarianism present in those photos. But you believe that you could trace everything back because of a continuous and an uniform process?

 

[Job 33:6]

And some might say "but -komatiitebif, it's obvious that the car drove into the pole, and it's obvious the person was walking through the snow, but we don't know how long these events took to unfold."

On the contrary, we know that a brisk walk occurs at some 3 miles per hour. We know that people of certain heights have certain lengthed steps.

We can certain estimate the time it took for someone to walk a certain distance.

How about the trains?

Well, if you know what a train is made of, you can actually estimate the rate at which the train must have been moving to take on certain increments of damage. If the train were moving at 1,000 miles per hour, it would be utterly obliterated. If the train were moving 1 mile per hour, the train would take less damage.

And by using general physics, we can determine a lot about the passage of time of objects in the past, even without needing to be present to see the event.

Time is basically something relative, it is defined by the passage of events. And so long as we understand the nature of the object of the event, so too can we determine passages of time of the event itself.

If I throw a ball 20 feet in the air, I can turn my back away from that ball, and not look at it at all, and based on basic physics, I can tell exactly when that ball will hit the ground and how much time it will take without needing to be present to see it.

Old Earth geology is the same thing. We calculate rates of orogenesis, we have trace fossils like foot tracks, nests with eggs, complex burrow networks etc. And simply by understanding the objects of the events (by understanding rocks and dinosaurs and other ancient life) we can quite easily derive how long events took to unfold, even without a time machine.

 

[Livingstones2020]

And some might say "but -komatiitebif, it's obvious that the car drove into the pole, and it's obvious the person was walking through the snow, but we don't know how long these events took to unfold."

On the contrary, we know that a brisk walk occurs at some 3 miles per hour. We know that people of certain heights have certain lengthed steps.

We can certain estimate the time it took for someone to walk a certain distance.

How about the trains?

Well, if you know what a train is made of, you can actually estimate the rate at which the train must have been moving to take on certain increments of damage. If the train were moving at 1,000 miles per hour, it would be utterly obliterated. If the train were moving 1 mile per hour, the train would take less damage.

And by using general physics, we can determine a lot about the passage of time of objects in the past, even without needing to be present to see the event.

Time is basically something relative, it is defined by the passage of events. And so long as we understand the nature of the object of the event, so too can we determine passages of time of the event itself.

If I throw a ball 20 feet in the air, I can turn my back away from that ball, and not look at it at all, and based on basic physics, I can tell exactly when that ball will hit the ground and how much time it will take without needing to be present to see it.

Old Earth geology is the same thing. We calculate rates of orogenesis, we have trace fossils like foot tracks, nests with eggs, complex burrow networks etc. And simply by understanding the objects of the events (by understanding rocks and dinosaurs and other ancient life) we can quite easily derive how long events took to unfold, even without a time machine.

Still proving my point. If uniformitarianism is true, then that would be the only logical conclusion. But that is assume it is true. If it is not true, then the data you are gathering cannot be trusted as much as if uniformitarianism was true.

 

[Job 33:6]

Actually, here is the problem with your reasoning. Do you accept uniformitarianism? That is the things that we see in the present happened gradually in the past? Because according to the pictures you posted, there is no uniformitarianism present in those photos. But you believe that you could trace everything back because of a continuous and an uniform process?

Are you able to figure out what happened in the past in this picture?

To be fair, yes, of course you can. You can safely say that the person in the past, had walked through the snow and made foot prints.

And you do not need a time machine to figure this out...do you?

 

[Livingstones2020]

Are you able to figure out what happened in the past in this picture?

View attachment 278816
To be fair, yes, of course you can. You can safely say that the person in the past, had walked through the snow and made foot prints.

And you do not need a time machine to figure this out...do you?

I really believe you are comparing apples and oranges and I can't believe that you are not seeing it. What I said before, if you believe in uniformitarianism, then there are no catastrophes in the past. Everything thing we see in the present has always been the same in the past. But what if there was a catastrophe in Earth's history that could leave scars on the Earth's surface? It would upset your theory on that then.

 

[Job 33:6]

By the same above logic, here are dinosaur foot tracks.

Imagine if someone came to you and said "komatiite, physics in the past could have been different than today, that dinosaur could have walked 50 feet in a fraction of a single second and you wouldn't know because you were not alive in the past to see it".

How absurd of an idea it is. But this is the argument that is being made against geology.

 

[Job 33:6]

I really believe you are comparing apples and oranges and I can't believe that you are not seeing it. What I said before, if you believe in uniformitarianism, then there are no catastrophes in the past. Everything thing we see in the present has always been the same in the past. But what if there was a catastrophe in Earth's history that could leave scars on the Earth's surface? It would upset your theory on that then.

You're unable to honestly answer the question.

Can you, or can you not, determine what happened in the past in the following photos?

Of course you can, and you simultaneously, can estimate how much time it would take for these events (things walking) to.unfold.

 

[Job 33:6]

And you know that you don't need a time machine.^ all you need is intellectual honesty.