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.
You are wrong on this! The most powerful evidence for the supernatural was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The evidence was so strong that millions of martyrs preferred to die rather than deny said fact and in a few centuries the entire powerful pagan Roman Empire became Christian.
I find no reference to the creation of waters in verse one. There is no verse saying “Let there be waters.”Also I notice that in verse one it talked of creating the waters.
If they would have know back then what you know today, do you think they would have recanted and lived?Those millions of martyrs claimed to have witnessed the resurrection?
I learn when people show me evidence I have no way to interpret in harmony with my world view.Maybe you should spend more time learning and less time trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.
If they would have know back then what you know today, do you think they would have recanted and lived?
But there is no reliable evidence for that event. You may believe it happened, but that is not evidence And no, there were no "millions of martyrs". In fact it appears that the claims of martyrdom for Christianity is hugely overblown:You are wrong on this! The most powerful evidence for the supernatural was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The evidence was so strong that millions of martyrs preferred to die rather than deny said fact and in a few centuries the entire powerful pagan Roman Empire became Christian.
Read my posting above : entitled
Red Blood Cells Found in Dinosaur Fossils
For someone that assaulted creation in Genesis by inserting stuff and pipe dreaming to call foe evidence is hypocritical.I learn when people show me evidence I have no way to interpret in harmony with my world view.
Every time I search the Internet to find an answer for your cogent objections, I learn something I didn’t know before.Maybe you should spend more time learning and less time trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.
Experts claim that our planet and our sun are approximately five billion years old. I have no problem with that!Stars were made on the day the sun was and that was after our earth. The atmosphere may pre date stars!
Nor do I, until those "experts" expect me to believe the sun has been hanging around for approximately five billion years; or that the sun came before the earth.Experts claim that our planet and our sun are approximately five billion years old. I have no problem with that!
Genesis was written because God ordered it, and wanted a record of creation.
Five billion years is fine with me.That's fine, but I asked a specific question concerning as to how far on the deep past do you think we can look, with respect to "Earth's" physical environment.
Then how do we explain fossils of life being found in layers of sedimentary strata dating back well over 3 Ga (billion years)?
Because this is rather a recent discovery. Besides, it may contradict or eventually obliterate the evolutionist’s edifice scientists have struggled so hard to build on thin air. Most experts do not dare to tell the prince that he is naked!Why hasn't this opinion, been accepted by professional geologists?
The Bible has no need for the flood to have been global. Have you read the story of Joseph? It affirms that all the world went to Egypt to buy bread. You do not conclude that the indigenous inhabitants of America made the long voyage to buy bread from Joseph. You have the option of concluding that the flood was global or rather local without destroying the credibility of biblical record."What history has validated a recent global flood?
Each hypothesis is built on a different premise. If the premise is replaced, the conclusion must be rejected.Wetterich's hypothesis may be well-founded, but your links don't say how the hypothesis explains the observational data that support the Big Bang cosmology, nor do they say that the hypothesis vitiates the age for the universe obtained from WMAP and Planck observations.
okEvery time I search the Internet to find an answer for your cogent objections, I learn something I didn’t know before.
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?