Once again, CREATIONISTS!

[AV1611VET]

Yes, Creation is still in process, as evidenced by Hawking energy...

Then the Bible disagrees with Hawking energy.

[bible]Genesis 2:1-2[/bible]

But please, if the available scientific evidence does NOT point to billions of years worth of Creation (and evolution) what DOES all the available scientific evidence point to?

Who knows?

I contend that unless evidence leads to Jesus Christ as the Creator of this universe, it's useless.

Jesus Himself, for instance, made this remark about geology:

[bible]Luke 19:40[/bible]

And this remark about botany:

[bible]Matthew 6:30[/bible]

And Paul, speaking on all matter in general, said this:

[bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

And speaking of the Nuclear Forces, said this:

[bible]Colossians 1:17[/bible]

Peter speaks of nuclear decay at the end of the Millennial Reign:

[bible]2 Peter 3:12[/bible]

etc.

So I would venture to say that if science doesn't conclude that God is the Creator - keep looking.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, without evidence of any kind, what's the difference between a one-time event and a no-time event?

Truth.

What about where the interpretation of evidence disagrees with the interpretation of Scripture?

Then the interpretation of the evidence is wrong.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I contend that unless evidence leads to Jesus Christ as the Creator of this universe, it's useless.

Jesus Himself, for instance, made this remark about geology:

[bible]Luke 19:40[/bible]

So, talking rocks is your idea of Geology?

And this remark about botany:

[bible]Matthew 6:30[/bible]

Grass wearing clothing is your idea of Botany?

And Paul, speaking on all matter in general, said this:

[bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

So, everything talks, feels pain, and has feelings? How very pantheistic?

And speaking of the Nuclear Forces, said this:

[bible]Colossians 1:17[/bible]

Where's the "nuclear" part of this?

Peter speaks of nuclear decay at the end of the Millennial Reign:

[bible]2 Peter 3:12[/bible]

Where's the part of this that has anytrhing to do with anything?

etc.

So I would venture to say that if science doesn't conclude that God is the Creator - keep looking.

How is science supposed to conclude anything when your definition to is is shackled to the drivel you've posted?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Truth.

"Truth" without evidence is rather likea cup of coffee without cream or sugar -- or a cup -- or hot water -- or coffee.

Then the interpretation of the evidence is wrong.

Not your interpretation of Scripture? You dare not question anything you read?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Then the Bible disagrees with Hawking energy.

[bible]Genesis 2:1-2[/bible]



Who knows?

I contend that unless evidence leads to Jesus Christ as the Creator of this universe, it's useless.

Jesus Himself, for instance, made this remark about geology:

[bible]Luke 19:40[/bible]

And this remark about botany:

[bible]Matthew 6:30[/bible]

And Paul, speaking on all matter in general, said this:

[bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

And speaking of the Nuclear Forces, said this:

[bible]Colossians 1:17[/bible]

Peter speaks of nuclear decay at the end of the Millennial Reign:

[bible]2 Peter 3:12[/bible]

etc.

So I would venture to say that if science doesn't conclude that God is the Creator - keep looking.

not the question.

What does the scientific evidence point to?

Biblical Creationism, or Billion years of Creation and evolution?

It really is a very simple, either/or question

 

[Vene]

So then applying this to the universe, wouldn't it appear that the universe underwent the big bang, various nuclear reactions, abiogenesis, and evolution? And since it basically did when God formed the universe, wouldn't it make sense to follow those models because we humans are able to exploit them for our own purpose?

Or have you lost me again?

Care to answer it now?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, without evidence of any kind, what's the difference between a one-time event and a no-time event? None.

Nathan, do you know just how wrong that answer is? Please re-read it slowly.

 

[AV1611VET]

not the question.

What does the scientific evidence point to?

Biblical Creationism, or Billion years of Creation and evolution?

It really is a very simple, either/or question

And again --- I don't know --- I'm not trained to interpret it like you guys are.

But if I had to guess, I would definitely go with Biblical Creationism.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

And again --- I don't know --- I'm not trained to interpret it like you guys are.

But if I had to guess, I would definitely go with Biblical Creationism.

But havn't you been telling us for several pages now that there is NO evidence for Biblical Creationism?

 

[AV1611VET]

So then applying this to the universe, wouldn't it appear that the universe underwent the big bang, various nuclear reactions, abiogenesis, and evolution? And since it basically did when God formed the universe, wouldn't it make sense to follow those models because we humans are able to exploit them for our own purpose?

Care to answer it now?

If you see things "appearing" that contradict the Bible, then you would do well to remember Paul's words here ---

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

[Vene]

If you see things "appearing" that contradict the Bible, then you would do well to remember Paul's words here ---

I'm setting all of this in the frame of the one week creation, but am suggesting that the methods used by God are those observed by scientists. I'm just putting it in fast forward. You said yourself that there are no uses for Biblical creation, but there are uses for godless science. I don't care about why the universe exists, but how it exists.

 

[AV1611VET]

But havn't you been telling us for several pages now that there is NO evidence for Biblical Creationism?

I sure have --- what's your question?

I'm trying to answer these question from your perspective, not mine; and to tell you the truth, I don't know what "evidence" you're talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm setting all of this in the frame of the one week creation, but am suggesting that the methods used by God are those observed by scientists.

Here's the way Henry Morris puts it:

• Evolution = continuing natural processes
• Creation = completed supernatural processes

/end Henry Morris

"Scientists" view what they see in the light of 'continuing natural processes', and I assume it points them in the wrong direction.

I'm just putting it in fast forward. You said yourself that there are no uses for Biblical creation, but there are uses for godless science.

This is where I make the point that we Christians hold science up to a higher Standard.

To you, science is 'godless' (atheistic) --- but to me, science was created by God to run the universe.

 

[BrainHertz]

Then the Bible disagrees with Hawking energy.

[bible]Genesis 2:1-2[/bible]


Who knows?

I contend that unless evidence leads to Jesus Christ as the Creator of this universe, it's useless.

Jesus Himself, for instance, made this remark about geology:

[bible]Luke 19:40[/bible]

And this remark about botany:

[bible]Matthew 6:30[/bible]


<and so on>...

Ok, so back to this:

Why do you belive the Bible to be a reliable source of information?

I asked you this one before. IIRC, you replied with something about the prophecy of the creation of Israel being fulfilled. I then asked whether you were talking about ancient or modern Israel. I didn't see an answer (apologies if I missed it, it would be on an old thread to which I don't have a reference).

Anyway, what say you? Why do you consider the Bible a reliable source?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And again --- I don't know --- I'm not trained to interpret it like you guys are.

But if I had to guess, I would definitely go with Biblical Creationism.

No. the scientific evidence DOESN'T point to Biblical creationism.

But please, feel more than free not to take our word for it, research it yourself

 

[Vene]

Here's the way Henry Morris puts it:

• Evolution = continuing natural processes
• Creation = completed supernatural processes

/end Henry Morris

"Scientists" view what they see in the light of 'continuing natural processes', and I assume it points them in the wrong direction.

So then are you saying that all natural processes have stopped?

This is where I make the point that we Christians hold science up to a higher Standard.

To you, science is 'godless' (atheistic) --- but to me, science was created by God to run the universe.

Science doesn't involve the supernatural. Deities are supernatural. Therefore, science is godless. But it isn't atheistic as it stays out of the supernatural. It's not by fault that you take your "science" out of a book written thousands of years ago. Even if God inspired them, who's to say that He didn't tell the writer of Genesis what we observe in nature, but he didn't understand and tried to scribe as well as he could. Quite simply, the authors were limited by their experiences.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nathan, do you know just how wrong that answer is? Please re-read it slowly.

I wrote it. without evidence, I have no reason to believe it happened.

Perhaps I should've put "one-time event" in quotes before?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I sure have --- what's your question?

I'm trying to answer these question from your perspective, not mine; and to tell you the truth, I don't know what "evidence" you're talking about.

Rather than bring up all the scientific evidence that points to an old earth that was not created ex nihilo a few thousand years ago I will just say this. First you say there is no scientific evidence for Biblical ex nihilo creation and then you say the scientific evidence favors Biblical creation then you admit you have been saying there is no evidence for Biblical Creation. They could have sure used you on one of those old Star Trek episodes where they drove the big bad computer crazy by repeatedly making ILLOGICAL statements.

 

[Phred]

What matter?

Do you know the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia?

Are you saying an apple is not made from its constituent molecules? And those molecules are not made from atoms? And those atoms are not made from electrons and protons and neutrons? And those particles are not made from quarks of all different flavors?

I don't care what latin name you give it there AV... there simply is no way to create an apple from nothing without creating the apple. The molecular structure must be arranged just so in order for it to BE an apple. In my hand is an apple. It just appeared there. How do I convince someone that you made it ex nihilo? You tell me the process by which you did it. That's the evidence. HOW AV? Not, "there is the apple." I get that. HOW did you create it from nothing? In this answer is the evidence that will answer your apple challenge. No omniscience required. Your challenge is met, dispatched and this several month-long charade is over.

 

[Phred]

I defy you to show me those words in the Bible.

Revelation 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book

By the way AV... any luck finding the words ex nihilo in the Bible?