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.
Okay.Please give me an example where the Bible appears to contradict the physical world - (other than a miracle, which is a direct contradiction to the laws of nature).
Just one though, please.
Okay.
[bible]Genesis 2:7[/bible]
Man was not formed out of dirt. Man evolved.
Okay.
[bible]Genesis 2:7[/bible]
Man was not formed out of dirt. Man evolved.
I'm not sure this is the point Aggie is making with me; but we'll see.
The Bible disagrees with you, btw.
[bible]Nehemiah 9:6[/bible]
Please give me an example where the Bible appears to contradict the physical world - (other than a miracle, which is a direct contradiction to the laws of nature).
Just one though, please.
The Pi issue provides the interested party with the THICKNESS of the bowl as well as its circumference. And while bats are not birds, they do fly and are grouped together with animals that mostly do fly. Nothing wrong with that.The earth is not flat, it is not the center of the universe, pie is not 3, bats are not birds and vise versa.
Reefs have been known to grow much faster under certain conditions.Chalnoth, your example is a little more vague than I was hoping for. I’ve been trying to think of the best example of a specific piece of physical evidence that contradicts young-earth creationism. There are a lot of possibilities, but AV asked for just one, and I’d like it to be one that can’t be explained by any creationist model, not even the “embedded age” hypothesis.
AV, I guess I’ll go with the Great Barrier Reef. Based on the growth rate of coral polyps, it would have taken at least 500,000 years for this reef to reach its current size. I know you would explain this by saying that God created the reef with the appearance of age, but this reef also poses a more serious problem for young-earth creationism.
Coral can’t survive in water that’s more than 150 feet deep, because it can’t live without sunlight. Slight changes in temperature and salinity also kill coral, so there’s no way this reef could have survived a global flood. Yet the structure of this reef shows that it’s grown continuously for as long as it’s existed, with only slight changes due to the sea level gradually rising after the end of the Ice Age. This isn’t possible if there was a global flood sometime within the past 10,000 years, which would have killed most of it.
Most of the theistic evolutionists at this forum would probably say that this doesn’t contradict the Bible, because they think of the flood story in Genesis as either an allegory or a massive localized flood. But I know that you think a literal interpretation of this is the only acceptable one, so the Great Barrier Reef definitely contradicts your interpretation of the Bible.
I’m not sure exactly why you needed me to provide a specific example of this, since other examples of the same thing have been posted before. But now that I’ve given you one, what do you have to say about the idea that when physical evidence like this contradicts your interpretation of the Bible, it’s the first which you reject rather than the second?
what kinds of conditions?Reefs have been known to grow much faster under certain conditions.
like, 500,000/6000 times as fast.In a flood. Much much faster.
like, 500,000/6000 times as fast.
COINCIDENCE?
In addition, and I may be wrong on this, but I believe it's the density of the reef, not the size of the reef that determines its age.
I find this thread fascinating in some ways. It brings back memories of my flawed thinking. I'd actually like to get in touch with Aggie again and talk to him about this thread and the evolution of my thinking throughout the years but I doubt that he posts here anymore. I don't even know if many of the same people are still on this board.
In addition, and I may be wrong on this, but I believe it's the density of the reef, not the size of the reef that determines its age.
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?