New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

[LastSeven]

What would be the point of that? It's not like the Moon NEEDS to have craters. And with the tumbling asteroids, what would be the point of making them spin in such a way that would make one think, when calculated, that they've been turning as such for billions of years?

Who am I to say what the point is of anything God has done? Can the creation question the creator?

The fact is, a lot of this evidence points to a long existence of such things, so I tend to believe, as you do, that the planets and stars were formed billions of years ago. I don't, however, claim to know it as a fact. Only God himself knows the answer.

In any case, my first point is, that despite all the evidence, there is no way that either an old earth or young earth can be proven since God is all powerful and we were not present to witness the act of creation. My second point is, that it doesn't matter how old the earth is.

The only important debate, in regards to the earth, is whether or not it was intelligently created.

 

[EternalDragon]

What would be the point of that? It's not like the Moon NEEDS to have craters. And with the tumbling asteroids, what would be the point of making them spin in such a way that would make one think, when calculated, that they've been turning as such for billions of years?

Psalm 104: Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

What would be the equivalent of stretching out space? Would time be effected? You are arguing from the point where you don't have a clue, yet you argue. Christians do have a clue. God gave us clues in his word.

 

[LastSeven]

No, I didn't. I stated my point quite clearly.

His supernatural beliefs no more invalidate theism than his scientific beliefs would do the opposite. My point was that his belief in God is a non-issue. Acting like there's a connection is an appeal to authority.

It was Subduction Zone who made the connection when he said "To be a YEC you have to deny all science since and including Newton.", as if Newton and science go hand in hand versus creationism. I only made the point that Newton, as a scientist, was not in opposition to creationism but in fact embraced it.

I made the point, not to support my view of creationism, but to squash his argument that believing in creationism somehow opposes the beliefs of Newton.

 

[lasthero]

Psalm 104: Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

What would be the equivalent of stretching out space? Would time be effected?

Would it? And what this has what to do with asteroids hitting the Moon?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Assuming creation is true is not the opposite of science. That is impossible, since science is the discovery of creation.

It depends upon your definition of creation. We know the creation story of the Bible is just a myth.

There is debate among creationists as to whether the earth is 7,000 years old or billions of years old or somewhere in between. The fact is, it doesn't really matter how old the earth is or how old the stars are. The important point we agree on, which is that it was all created by an intelligent God. Pointing to YEC beliefs as evidence of the fallacy of creation in general is a straw man argument.

No, it isn't. It seems that you do not know what a strawman argument is.

Certain creationists views are extremely wrong. Some are only wrong. They all do share the characteristic of being wrong.

Personally, I don't pretend to know how old the earth is, but I also don't blindly believe what scientists tell us. Scientists try to look into the past by looking at the present, because that is all they have, but doing so requires the assumption that states of matter have been constant throughout history, and we simply don't know if that is the case.

Not blindly believing science is fine, to a point. If you are not willing to learn the science then you have no business disputing it. We have extremely strong evidence that the laws of physics have not changed for billions of years and no evidence to the contrary. It would be utter foolishness to assume anything else.

Since God is all powerful and exists outside of the constraints of time it is nothing for Him to have created something instantaneously that appears to have taken billions of years to form. On the other hand, it is also possible that he created the earth and allowed it to naturally evolve over billions of years, before he created man. I don't know, and I don't care. Either way, the earth is a result of intelligent design, and science is merely man's way of trying to quantify it all.

See now you are guilty of assuming "facts" without any evidence that supports them. Again, that is the opposite of science.

Think about it. If you choose to believe only in science, what will you do when they announce that they have discovered the spirit particle?

Pascal's wager, which this is a version of, was debunked long ago. To start with there are millions of possible gods. How do you know you are worshiping the right one?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Being labelled anything in today's society does not mean much. As scripture predicted this is exactly what would happen. Good will be considered evil, and evil, good.

And as it so happens, when searching for those Biblical Codes, he found them.

Yes, almost all religions have nonsense like that. They are "prophesies" designed to protect the religion. Nothing more than that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What about them? Didn't I already answer the question? An all powerful God can create a system of galaxies in any state he chooses. Those craters could have appeared naturally and gradually over the course of time, or he could have painted each one individually with the tip of his finger in a matter of seconds.

So now you are saying that your god can lie to you if he wants to?

All evidence points to a naturally formed world that is billions of years old. I never beleived in a deceitful god and felt the idea of "his game, his rules" was bogus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Psalm 104: Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

What would be the equivalent of stretching out space? Would time be effected? You are arguing from the point where you don't have a clue, yet you argue. Christians do have a clue. God gave us clues in his word.

You are merely picking and choosing verses to reinterpret in light of what we understand now. Again, that can be done with any religion. The Muslims are infamous for reinterpreting the Koran and saying that is evidence that they are correct. It is a game that should not be played by either Christians or Muslims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was Subduction Zone who made the connection when he said "To be a YEC you have to deny all science since and including Newton.", as if Newton and science go hand in hand versus creationism. I only made the point that Newton, as a scientist, was not in opposition to creationism but in fact embraced it.

I made the point, not to support my view of creationism, but to squash his argument that believing in creationism somehow opposes the beliefs of Newton.

Yes, that is because he did not know all of the implications of the physics that he had discovered at that time. Do you seriously think he would have changed his mind if he found out that he had proven some of his religious beliefs wrong?

If you think that then you do not know scientists very well.

 

[LastSeven]

See now you are guilty of assuming "facts" without any evidence that supports them. Again, that is the opposite of science.

If you are talking about faith, that may be defined as the opposite of science if you think of science as a type of process that requires quantifiable evidence, but you say that as though it's a bad thing, while Jesus said the exact opposite. Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe.

You can choose to wait for science to prove everything to you, if you like, but what if they don't discover the truth in time for you to believe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you are talking about faith, that may be defined as the opposite of science if you think of science as a type of process that requires quantifiable evidence, but you say that as though it's a bad thing, while Jesus said the exact opposite. Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe.

You can choose to wait for science to prove everything to you, if you like, but what if they don't discover the truth in time for you to believe?

In time to believe what?

Please ease off of Pascal's wager.

 

[LastSeven]

So now you are saying that your god can lie to you if he wants to?

How did I say or imply that God can lie to me if he wants to? Do you think the seven day creation story is believed to be a literal seven days? That in itself would be impossible since the sun was not set in the sky until the "fourth day" and yet a day is defined as a single rotation around the sun. How could there have been three "days" before the sun even existed?

Clearly the creation story is allegorical and simplified for easy understanding. This is a common form of writing in all the books of the bible.

 

[LastSeven]

In time to believe what?

Please ease off of Pascal's wager.

The point is, science is the discovery of creation. So science never discovers "new" things, they only newly discover old things. As time goes by the scientists discover more and more truths about creation and eventually, if given enough time and resources, they would discover a spirit world. Would that then finally allow you to believe in a supernatural god?

 

[LastSeven]

All evidence points to a naturally formed world that is billions of years old. I never beleived in a deceitful god and felt the idea of "his game, his rules" was bogus.

You sound like a spoiled child who feels his parents rules are unfair.

If you don't believe that God exists then there's no point in trying to play by "his rules". I get that. But if you choose not to "play by his rules" because you don't like the idea of an authoritative God over your life, then you're just being arrogant and foolish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How did I say or imply that God can lie to me if he wants to? Do you think the seven day creation story is believed to be a literal seven days? That in itself would be impossible since the sun was not set in the sky until the "fourth day" and yet a day is defined as a single rotation around the sun. How could there have been three "days" before the sun even existed?

Clearly the creation story is allegorical and simplified for easy understanding. This is a common form of writing in all the books of the bible.

If God created the Earth and all of the evidence that says the Earth is old when it isn't wouldn't that be a case of deception?

There are many creationists who would disagree with your interpretation of Genesis. In fact why can't the whole Genesis story be allegory if part of it is?


We know that life evolved why can't it be a story about the origination of sin? Science has already disproved the idea of an Adam and Eve or Noah's Ark. Why can't these simply be instructional stories?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point is, science is the discovery of creation. So science never discovers "new" things, they only newly discover old things. As time goes by the scientists discover more and more truths about creation and eventually, if given enough time and resources, they would discover a spirit world. Would that then finally allow you to believe in a supernatural god?

Science is always open to the possibility of god. The problem with words like "creation" is that they tend to give you a biased viewpoint. It seems you are assuming the existence of god when you don't have evidence for one.

If science found evidence for a god scientists would be the first to start believing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You sound like a spoiled child who feels his parents rules are unfair.

If you don't believe that God exists then there's no point in trying to play by "his rules". I get that. But if you choose not to "play by his rules" because you don't like the idea of an authoritative God over your life, then you're just being arrogant and foolish.

You are mistaken.

I seriously doubt if any atheist "chooses" not to believe. When you investigate the existence of god hard enough you will that evidence for him is sorely lacking.

 

[Lethe]

Where do you get the idea that creationists hate science?

Seriously? Have you been following Eternal Dragon or Justatruthseeker's posts the last few days? Not to mention, AV1611Vet.

 

[EternalDragon]

If God created the Earth and all of the evidence that says the Earth is old when it isn't wouldn't that be a case of deception?

No. The earth was created by God faster than natural. That much is explained in Genesis. So we would find an earth and universe looking old, which is not really old, and that is exactly what we find.

As I asked before and you refused to answer. Does Genesis say that God created Adam and Eve from a womb and watched over them as the learned to crawl and walk? Is God creating Adam and Eve as adults, looking old, and then showing this, a deception?

God explains exactly how he did things. So the only person that is being deceived is you and not by God.

 

[EternalDragon]

Seriously? Have you been following Eternal Dragon or Justatruthseeker's posts the last few days? Not to mention, AV1611Vet.

Evolution taken out to where we all have a common ancestor and are all related and apes turned into a man is not science.

That's like taking the fact that it rains to then say given enough time, and conditions, that the rain could create an ice sculpture of the empire state building.