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.
If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.Creationism is a modern heresy. Like Gnosticism.
The prodigal son is a good outline of the Creation. Man was created and possessed the wealth of his father. He left him and squandered his resources whereby he was subjected to suffering.
The issue isn't the miracle of God creating stars complete with the light they would have shone if they were older spread across the universe. The problem is supernovae, stars millions of miles away that we see explode. If this light was created in transit just six thousand years ago, then there never was a star to give out the light we saw before it went supernova. The star would have blown up before it was created. Which means the star itself was never created, and the light we saw was not from a real star. Worse for anyone who want to think that death and destruction are the result of the fall, this non existent star's tale of destruction was written into the fabric of creation from the very beginning.
nothing will persuade me of evolution or a long earth theory
Why would they reject it? They were not scientists. It doesn't make it any less baloney that a bunch of scribes in 800 BC would have known anything about advanced theories of biology.Only if you think Genesis was written just yesterday. Do you have evidence that early readers of Genesis rejected a 6 day creation?
Baloney is normally served up like you just did....cold without any evidence of it ever having been meat.
You mean God exists through all eternity seeing the end from the beginning and that he fills the universe?God claims to already be in both places at once. I realize your head will explode if you consider the truth, but God can actually be in both places or times at the same time. So your "which came first" bafflement is solved by a God not limited to your view of time.
How long does it normally take a man born blind to recover his sight?Just like nearly every miracle that people recognize in the scriptures, there is a missing time element. This is often the basis for calling something a miracle in the first place.
If Jesus took longer to heal people, we'd call Him "the great therapist."
Not without a grapevine.If He took longer to change water into wine, he'd be "The Great Vintner".
1) I ain't your honey.
Are you saying that it will not be disrupted over there?2) that's why I suggested that they post in the closed off section, not the open section.
Why would they reject it? They were not scientists. It doesn't make it any less baloney that a bunch of scribes in 800 BC would have known anything about advanced theories of biology.
It's not up to me to prove that evolution, which is the most strongly evidenced scientific theory on the planet; it's for you to prove that it's wrong. So far, nothing but special pleading and magical thinking from you lot.
So what we get is the Bible telling us that if we are going to get a decent miracle, it's going to look old. Or Be old. I don't know which.
Darwin just took natural selection that we see and extended it into absurdity and concluded that mud will evolve into people given enough time to bake in the sun.
So we are made up of star stuff from a star that was blown up before it was created? It just goes on and on into the realm of absurdity and impossibility.The star would have blown up before it was created.
Sure, but then the point is that it is a miracle and not explainable within the categories of science which only explains regular, repeatable, observable, natural processes.So, for example, science can explain how I was conceived consequent to the sexual relations of my parents, but not how Jesus was conceived in the womb of a virgin.
There is nothing wrong, scientifically or theologically, with believing in miracles. The problem comes when a) one thinks rejecting a miracle is the same thing as rejecting God or when b) one looks for scientific validation of the miracles one believes in.Does accepting the scientific explanation of how I was conceived mean I must reject God as my creator? Of course not. No more does accepting the scientific explanation for how species come into being.Would we add anything to the miracle of the Virgin Birth if we had a scientific explanation of it? I think not.Not really. This is assuming that a natural explanation of the origin of species is intended to exclude a Creator. Darwin did not, apparently, make that assumption. Why do you? And why do you do so exclusively in regard to evolution and not in regard to other natural processes such as the development of a plant from a seed?
Thank you Greg. I'm quite used to the demeanor of evolutionists which normally just conveys a lack of confidence in their own argument.
Hello, I am a creationist and only looking for answers from fellow creationists. I understand that there are some apparent problems with the idea that light was created 'in transit' by G-d back in Genesis one.
What if the light created, coming from stars reflected currently reality, instead of past reality (which would take into consideration the speed of light.) It would mean that the events that we see unfold (stars exploding and such were present events and not past events.) This would require though that the light in transit was already transmitting information about events in the future, rather than solely in the past or present. Does this pose any scientific or scriptural objections? I suppose it could be argued that this would be breaking the barrier of the natural laws, which would require a belief in continuous revelation, but surely the ''doctrine' of continuous revelation refers to something revealed and as we will never receive revelation before is arrives, we wouldn't necessarily have that problem.
Just brainstorming and would love for some correction, input and suggestion?
Just try to ignore Darwinian quips like the above, protestantreformation. Welcome to the forum
A good explanation. That sounds correct that God creates, then time begins. So the Creation process takes place outside of our time.
That fits with nearly every miracle in the Bible.
Why do you assume that someone is an "evolutionist" because they point out a problem with your understanding of theoretical astrophysics?No offense, but I have no interest at present in talking to evolutionists, as I said at the outset.
Lets assume for a moment that God healed a man who had no eyes.
Let's also role-play that it was me.
When you examine my eyes, what kind of scientific confirmation
do you expect to find? I'm in my 50's by the way.
I suggest you will find nothing out of the ordinary.
My only appeal is to "the truth" and I have to appeal
to you using the word "miracle" and special pleading.
There IS no scientific proof of Creation. That's not possible
because the event cannot be duplicated by my peers.
In order to be scientific, it must be repeatable.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
pjnlsn said:So, SkyWriting, or anyone really, where's the proof?
And if you, or anyone who believes, doesn't know what it is quite precisely, so that I could tell you, "well, based on that description, the following would be indicators...," then I really don't know why you all say that the thing exists in reality. Although if it's just that the belief is useful, then w/e, but otherwise.....
Hello, I am a creationist and only looking for answers from fellow creationists. I understand that there are some apparent problems with the idea that light was created 'in transit' by G-d back in Genesis one.
What if the light created, coming from stars reflected currently reality, instead of past reality (which would take into consideration the speed of light.) It would mean that the events that we see unfold (stars exploding and such were present events and not past events.) This would require though that the light in transit was already transmitting information about events in the future, rather than solely in the past or present. Does this pose any scientific or scriptural objections? I suppose it could be argued that this would be breaking the barrier of the natural laws, which would require a belief in continuous revelation, but surely the ''doctrine' of continuous revelation refers to something revealed and as we will never receive revelation before is arrives, we wouldn't necessarily have that problem.
Just brainstorming and would love for some correction, input and suggestion?
John G. Hartnett said:A new model, of a type similar to Humphreys, has been described that allows billions of years to pass in the cosmos but only 24 hours on Earth during Day 4. In this model, the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress and enormous time dilation occurs between Earth clocks and astronomical clocks. This solves the light-travel-time problem faced by creationist cosmology and makes all astronomical evidence fit the Genesis account. No non-physical requirements are placed on the model.
Originally Posted by John G. Hartnett
A new model, ... has been described that allows billions of years to pass in the cosmos but only 24 hours on Earth during Day 4. In this model, the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress and enormous time dilation occurs between Earth clocks and astronomical clocks. .... No non-physical requirements are placed on the model.
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?