Proof of Creation?

[Joe V.]

+++
Just because the Bible doesn't satisfy YOU as evidence doesn't mean it isn't evidence.
---
Your "evidence" won't hold a candle in any court, which is why evolution is taught in schools and not Creationism.

- Joe

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by flyingpenguin:
Why can I not accept that the earth is millions of years old?

The answer to that is simple. I believe the Bible is the unmistakable, literal Word of God. God says specifically that the world was made in 6 literal days.

To doubt this is to doubt the Bible, to say the the Word of God is incorrect, misinformed, wrong. If this is wrong, then what else could be wrong? The whole thing could be wrong...what parts can I believe, and which are incorrect?

What do you think the first chapter of Genesis means when it talks about the days of creation? Before you answer, please carefully read each of the theories presented on the thread you can reach by clicking here. Unless you are convinced that God and Moses wrote the account in KJV English (complete with the margin notes by Anglican archbishop James Ussher, perhaps), there are other alternatives you may wish to consider.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe in the Bible wholeheartedly, and I believe it when God says that the world was created by Him. However, is there any scientific proof of this?

No.

In Genesis 1:1, God speaks the earth into existence ex nihilo.

Obviously not even the First Law of Thermodynamics was in operation at the time.

So in essence, we see the earth existing apart from the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[CabVet]

No.

In Genesis 1:1, God speaks the earth into existence ex nihilo.

Obviously not even the First Law of Thermodynamics was in operation at the time.

So in essence, we see the earth existing apart from the First Law of Thermodynamics.

So basically, what you are saying is that God could not have possibly created the Earth and everything in it with a fully operational First Law of Thermodynamics, correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

So basically, what you are saying is that God could not have possibly created the Earth and everything in it with a fully operational First Law of Thermodynamics, correct?

Not on the first day, else every day after that would have been a violation of that law.

The first law says that matter & energy cannot be increased, yet the earth increased the matter & energy (from zero) when it came into existence.

 

[CabVet]

Not on the first day, else every day after that would have been a violation of that law.

The first law says that matter & energy cannot be increased, yet the earth increased the matter & energy (from zero) when it came into existence.

Did God suspend gravity when Jesus walked on water and ascended to heaven then? Did He suspend biology during the resurrection of Lazarus?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did God suspend gravity when Jesus walked on water and ascended to heaven then? Did He suspend biology during the resurrection of Lazarus?

Indeed He did.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Did God suspend gravity when Jesus walked on water and ascended to heaven then? Did He suspend biology during the resurrection of Lazarus?

Nope, Just put the energy back into Lazarus that had left him. Simply increased the density and energy level in the water were Jesus stepped and it supported him. Why gravitational maps are higher in some spots than others. More dense matter more energy in a concentrated area.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Creation, according to the Bible is this:

1. God created everything in 6 literal days (I don't want to hear about the Gap theory).
2. The heaven and earth was created mature...man was created full grown, animals were full grown, same with trees, stars, etc.

Is there any scientific proof of these events? Is it possible to have proof of this?

David

That is creation according to some people's interpretation of the Bible.

There is scientific disproof of this interpretation. It has nothing to do with whether or not you are a Christian. In fact, it was Christians, to a large extent, who found out that the Bible myths are not literally true.

 

[USincognito]

1st July 2002, 09:58 AM

 

[AV1611VET]

In fact, it was Christians, to a large extent, who found out that the Bible myths are not literally true.

Christians found out that Daniel wasn't in the lions' den, did they?

Would these be the same Christians who said Moses crossed the Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea?

 

[BarryDesborough]

Christians found out that Daniel wasn't in the lions' den, did they?

Would these be the same Christians who said Moses crossed the Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea?

History of geology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hello, I am a devout Christian and I have watched about 80% of Kent Hovind's stuff. While I find most of it very interesting (except the stuff about the New World Order...that is a bit whacked), I have heard many people attack him as being wrong.

I have also looked a bit into www.creationscience.com and found that stuff interesting.

Now, my questions is. I have heard from the evolutionists speaking on how factual their stuff is...but I haven't heard from creationists.

I believe in the Bible wholeheartedly, and I believe it when God says that the world was created by Him. However, is there any scientific proof of this?

I pose this to Christians and creationists. Not evolutionists. I have seen your posts where you give your arguements against creation. Now I would like to hear the arguements against evolution by the Creationists.

Thank you.
David

I don't know, you tell me if there is any evidence of God.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7752006/

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, then.

I ask this:

Christians found out that Daniel wasn't in the lions' den, did they?

Would these be the same Christians who said Moses crossed the Sea of Reeds, not the Red Sea?

And get this in reply:

History of geology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm glad I didn't ask about Noah -- you'd probably QV me to the History of astronomy?

 

[BarryDesborough]

I'm glad I didn't ask about Noah -- you'd probably QV me to the History of astronomy?

It was you who tried to change the subject.

That is creation according to some people's interpretation of the Bible.

There is scientific disproof of this interpretation. It has nothing to do with whether or not you are a Christian. In fact, it was Christians, to a large extent, who found out that the Bible myths are not literally true.

And yes, astronomy is relevant. There are plenty of Christian astronomers who accept deep time. In fact, astronomical observations clearly falsify a young universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

In fact, astronomical observations clearly falsify a young universe.

Only if you assume two things:

1. a vast universe = an old universe
2. a light year = a measure of time, not distance

 

[rikerjoe]

Only if you assume two things:

1. a vast universe = an old universe
2. a light year = a measure of time, not distance

Uhm, no.

1. Not necessary.
2. It is a measure of distance, not time.

 

[AV1611VET]

2. It is a measure of distance, not time.

Then Barry's point can take a hike.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Then Barry's point can take a hike.

The truth is stubborn. It remains. Additional Topics - Supernova

 

[BarryDesborough]

1st July 2002, 09:58 AM

So?