New or Grew?

[AV1611VET]

So you really can't lay out our position logically and sequentially, understood.

Why do I need to?

You claim you're a Christian.

Didn't God do all this for you:

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

You've been enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, made a partaker of the Holy Ghost, tasted the good word of God, and the powers to come ... and you're asking me to lay out proof of my assertions?

 

[Taodeching]

Why do I need to?

You claim you're a Christian.

Didn't God do all this for you:

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

You've been enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, made a partaker of the Holy Ghost, tasted the good word of God, and the powers to come ... and you're asking me to lay out proof of my assertions?

Just because I am a Christian doesn't mean I am your type of Christian. I understand you can provide no proof for your assertions, sad really since you should be able to without throwing lone verses around. If you want people to come to your ideas you'll need to explain and show proof otherwise why should anyone really care about anything that comes out of your mouth.

I am amazed I must say that other believers in this thread are doing a great job of bringing the intellect to bear and providing proof, logical proof yet you are not able to. All well you can't and I get it, you don't want to admit that you can't because of pride it happens to everyone once in a while.

Be well

 

[AV1611VET]

I am amazed I must say that other believers in this thread are doing a great job of bringing the intellect to bear and providing proof,

Their proof must not be too convincing though.

Because, when I asked you for proof of your position, you said:

I have no position, I await proof to be convinced.

What are you waiting on? Christmas?

 

[Taodeching]

Their proof must not be too convincing though.

Because, when I asked you for proof of your position, you said:
What are you waiting on? Christmas?

I am waiting on you, which has proven quite fruitless can you can offer nothing

 

[AV1611VET]

I am waiting on you, which has proven quite fruitless can you can offer nothing

Yes.

And I often do, since creationism is my forte.

It's called creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing).

 

[Taodeching]

Yes.

And I often do, since creationism is my forte.

It's called creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing).

That maybe but you offer scant proof. I see intellectual giants in this thread whom can expound on their ideas but not you unfortunately. Good day

 

[AV1611VET]

That maybe but you offer scant proof.

Next, you'll want me to show proof that Jesus walked on water?

I see intellectual giants in this thread whom can expound on their ideas ...

Have they convinced you?

... but not you unfortunately.

Sorry about your luck. Truth of the matter is, I very seldom see a light bulb come on in my threads, and I've talked to some real smart cookies; but their intellect gets in the way and creates a mental block that they can't get around. You're no exception.

Good day

Thank you. You too.

Psalm 118:24 This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.

 

[Kylie]

God created Adam as a fully grown adult, rather than as a fetus that went through years of development to full maturity. It follows then that God created the world in the same fashion.

Did Adam have a belly button?

 

[ozso]

Did Adam have a belly button?

Considering he wasn't inside a uterus attached to a plecenta, it seems unlikely. Then again maybe God created Adam as if he had been born like everyone else.

 

[Kylie]

Considering he wasn't inside a uterus attached to a plecenta, it seems unlikely. Then again maybe God created Adam as if he had been born like everyone else.

So if God was perfectly happy to create Adam without the signs of events that he hadn't gone through (such as being inside a womb and nourished via a placenta), why did he not do the same with the 6000 year old world?

Why does the 6000 year old world have all the indications of a long and eventful history, yet Adam does not?

 

[SelfSim]

So if God was perfectly happy to create Adam without the signs of events that he hadn't gone through (such as being inside a womb and nourished via a placenta), why did he not do the same with the 6000 year old world?

Why does the 6000 year old world have all the indications of a long and eventful history, yet Adam does not?

Cause Adam was just drawn that way!(?)
(You know .. like Jessica Rabbit was 'just drawn that way'!)

PS: Isn't there even a Gaga song: 'baby .. I was drawn this way"?

 

[ozso]

So if God was perfectly happy to create Adam without the signs of events that he hadn't gone through (such as being inside a womb and nourished via a placenta), why did he not do the same with the 6000 year old world?

Why does the 6000 year old world have all the indications of a long and eventful history, yet Adam does not?

But Adam did. He had thousands of days of development it takes an infant to grow into an adult take place instantly. So did Eve.

Now I'm a proponent of the young Earth theory. But I consider the idea that God created a fully developed planet the same as he created a fully developed human plausible.

There's two other thories I've heard.
One is the way the age of the Earth is established as 6000 years is by the genealogy given from Adam to Jesus. But it's possible that many names were skipped over. A short lineage would be Adam, Noah, Abraham, David, Jesus. So it's possible that even though 50 names are mentioned (I don't know the actual number) perhaps there were actually more like 500 descendents from Adam to Jesus.

The other idea already mentioned I believe is that the Earth was already ancient, had a great cataclysm, which killed the dinosaurs etc, and then God revived it for a second age. This seems quite possible since the Bible says in the future God will wipe out this present Earth and create a new heavens and earth.

 

[Kylie]

But Adam did. He had thousands of days of development it takes an infant to grow into an adult take place instantly. So did Eve.

Now I'm a proponent of the young Earth theory. But I consider the idea that God created a fully developed planet the same as he created a fully developed human plausible.

But in order to have a belly button, you need an umbilical cord.

In order to have an umbilical cord, you need a placenta.

In order to have a placenta, you need to have been in a woman's womb.

So you are saying that Adam was in a woman's womb? And which woman was this?

There's two other thories I've heard.
One is the way the age of the Earth is established as 6000 years is by the genealogy given from Adam to Jesus. But it's possible that many names were skipped over. A short lineage would be Adam, Noah, Abraham, David, Jesus. So it's possible that even though 50 names are mentioned (I don't know the actual number) perhaps there were actually more like 500 descendents from Adam to Jesus.

The other idea already mentioned I believe is that the Earth was already ancient, had a great cataclysm, which killed the dinosaurs etc, and then God revived it for a second age. This seems quite possible since the Bible says in the future God will wipe out this present Earth and create a new heavens and earth.

The trouble with both of these is that it starts with the conclusion and then tries to fit ideas into that conclusion. That's not a good way to find the truth.

 

[ozso]

But in order to have a belly button, you need an umbilical cord.

In order to have an umbilical cord, you need a placenta.

In order to have a placenta, you need to have been in a woman's womb.

So you are saying that Adam was in a woman's womb? And which woman was this?



The trouble with both of these is that it starts with the conclusion and then tries to fit ideas into that conclusion. That's not a good way to find the truth.

Well I certainly don't know how it took place. I just know a little about a few theories I've heard.

 

[Astrophile]

One is the way the age of the Earth is established as 6000 years is by the genealogy given from Adam to Jesus. But it's possible that many names were skipped over. A short lineage would be Adam, Noah, Abraham, David, Jesus. So it's possible that even though 50 names are mentioned (I don't know the actual number) perhaps there were actually more like 500 descendents from Adam to Jesus.

Luke 3:23-38 counts 77 names from Jesus to Adam.

 

[Taodeching]

Next, you'll want me to show proof that Jesus walked on water?

Nope just your ideas, which I have come to see that you have no proof just fantasy. Of course if you could provide proof

 

[sjastro]

The original BB theory may regain traction when a quantum theory of gravity is developed and agrees with observation.

Hot off the press.

Quantum gravity might soon be tested in the lab, thanks to a new analysis from physicists in the UK, France and Hong Kong. Drawing on advances in quantum information science, the researchers have found that if gravity is fundamentally quantum rather than classical it must generate a signature known as non-Gaussianity. To look for that signature, they propose probing an ultra-cold gas of several billion caesium atoms existing in a state known as a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC).
Attempts to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics usually involve quantizing gravity to create a theory of quantum gravity such as string theory or loop quantum gravity. However, with little or no empirical data to support such theories, some physicists have developed alternative unifying theories in which matter is quantized but gravity itself remains a fundamentally classical variable.

Previously, most scientists thought that distinguishing between these two types of theory in the laboratory would be impossible given the scale at which space-time should become quantized. That “Planck length” – a mere 1.6×10⁻³⁵ m – could only be probed directly by colliding particles using an accelerator about the size of the Milky Way.

Quantum gravity could soon be tested using ultracold atoms – Physics World

 

[Yttrium]

That maybe but you offer scant proof. I see intellectual giants in this thread whom can expound on their ideas but not you unfortunately. Good day

Neither side can offer proof here. Science can offer a number of robust theories, formed from vast amounts of natural evidence. Outside of math, though, science isn't big on proving things, just coming up with the best theories that fit the evidence. Creationism, on the other hand, tries to make the evidence fit scripture somehow, regardless of how awkward that might be.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hot off the press.

Quantum gravity could soon be tested using ultracold atoms – Physics World

I suspect 'soon' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that headline...

 

[sjastro]

I suspect 'soon' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that headline...

It took 271 years before Newton's thought experiment came to fruition with Sputnik.

From that perspective 'soon' might be a lot sooner than later.