Proof of Creation?

[EternalDragon]

It's old because it's actually old. Not because it was made to look that way.


Which is all anyone ever proposed.

No, they trust in their fallible interpretation of what he said and taught, and they do so regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary.

There is no real evidence to the contrary. Only different conclusions. Do
you think people are looking at different evidence?

And evolution proposes a lot of things not evident. You just gave a few
examples with snake, turtle and frog so called evolution, which are a
lot of assumptions and little evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are mixing in man's assumptions with your beliefs.

The problem is that you can never name those assumptions. Why is that?

Why are those Christians conservative? Because they trust what Jesus
said and taught. That Genesis is a true account of our history.

Funny how "biblical truth" has changed through the years.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

 

[Loudmouth]

The one that resulted in the global flood in Genesis 1.

[FONT=&quot]“[FONT=&quot]D[/FONT]arkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Then God said, ‘Let there be light’”, and the rest is history.[/FONT]

I see nothing about anything being cold.

Another great example of christians inserting their own words into the Bible.

 

[lasthero]

There is no real evidence to the contrary. Only different conclusions. Do
you think people are looking at different evidence?

Not all conclusions are equal, ED. Hollow Earthers are looking at the same evidenc, too. That doesn't mean their conclusions hold as much weight as the actual scientists. You and your lunatic fringe are no different, despite how much you might like to think you are.

And evolution proposes a lot of things not evident. You just gave a few
examples with snake, turtle and frog so called evolution, which are a
lot of assumptions and little evidence.

No, I gave you predictions made by evolution. In each case, they were things that evolution required to exist and were expected to be found in the fossil record if we found anything at all. How can an invalid theory make predictions that turn out to be true? Coincidence?

 

[Doveaman]

I see nothing about anything being cold.

Another great example of christians inserting their own words into the Bible.

Actually, science tells us it was cold before it started to become warm around 11 thousand years ago, shortly before God began His new creation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, science tells us it was cold before it started to become warm around 11 thousand years ago, shortly before God began His new creation.

Where does science say anything aboug God doing anything? Where does the Bible talk about an ice age?

You are making stuff up on both fronts.

 

[Doveaman]

Where does science say anything aboug God doing anything? Where does the Bible talk about an ice age?

You are making stuff up on both fronts.

The best theories are the ones that are able to reconcile biblical history with scientific discoveries.

Science gives us an idea of when the Holocene Epoch began (around 11,000 years ago at the end of the last glacial period), which was shortly before the creation events in Genesis 1 began around 6,000 years ago. This explains why the earth was flooded in Genesis 1. It was from the melting glaciers. It all fits nicely.

 

[Davian]

The best theories are the ones that are able to reconcile biblical history with scientific discoveries.

Science gives us an idea of when the Holocene Epoch began (around 11,000 years ago at the end of the last glacial period), which was shortly before the creation events in Genesis 1 began around 6,000 years ago. This explains why the earth was flooded in Genesis 1. It was from the melting glaciers. It all fits nicely.

What of the other ice ages in Earth's history?

"There have been at least five major ice ages in the earth's past (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciation). Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes.[31][32]

Rocks from the earliest well established ice age, called the Huronian, formed around 2.4 to 2.1 Ga (billion years) ago during the early Proterozoic Eon. "

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EternalDragon]

Not all conclusions are equal, ED. Hollow Earthers are looking at the same evidenc, too. That doesn't mean their conclusions hold as much weight as the actual scientists. You and your lunatic fringe are no different, despite how much you might like to think you are.

No, I gave you predictions made by evolution. In each case, they were things that evolution required to exist and were expected to be found in the fossil record if we found anything at all. How can an invalid theory make predictions that turn out to be true? Coincidence?

Are you calling me a lunatic because I trust God's word and Jesus and
have different conclusions to the evidence?

If I predicted that God created kinds with complexity that diversified
into lesser creatures like the frogamander into frogs and slamanders
then what would I find? Exact evidence for that prediction.

 

[Davian]

...
Explore a little beyond what you want to believe.

And also; projection.

A whiff of hypocrisy as well.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you calling me a lunatic because I trust God's word and Jesus and
have different conclusions to the evidence?

Your conclusions have nothing to do with the evidence, which makes it lunacy. Also, you are referencing the words of men.

If I predicted that God created kinds with complexity that diversified
into lesser creatures like the frogamander into frogs and slamanders
then what would I find? Exact evidence for that prediction.

Why would you predict frogamanders but not mammal-birds? Why would your predictions exactly match what we would expect from common ancestry and evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

The best theories are the ones that are able to reconcile biblical history with scientific discoveries.

Why do theories need to change in order to match stories in books?

Science gives us an idea of when the Holocene Epoch began (around 11,000 years ago at the end of the last glacial period), which was shortly before the creation events in Genesis 1 began around 6,000 years ago.

I am still waiting for the science that says God created anything.

This explains why the earth was flooded in Genesis 1. It was from the melting glaciers. It all fits nicely.

Funny how no one said that until after the discovery of glaciers. The interpretation of the Bible is what keeps changing.

 

[stevevw]

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

The bible and Gods creation was never meant to be a science lesson. But through the ages man has taken the position of trying to play God and explain everything. This is something within us because we want to know everything. But we can never understand how God created things and how he works. If you look back at history you will see that people have made all sorts of predictions and have had stupid explanations about this world and how things work. This hasn't been just religion but many scientific ideas were also crazy and ridiculous. Thats because we just didn't have the knowledge. We still dont but now we are getting closer to the very core of existence.

Now scientists are seeing some strange and unexplainable things. Things are moving outside the normal physics. This is where we are starting to really find it hard to explain things. Many scientists say its not because we havnt found an answer yet but that we will never really be able to explain this world of quantum mechanics because its pointing to so many different possibilities. Its based on the observers view and particles down at that level can be more than one state. So this maybe where we really are getting closer to how God works. How He can be in two places at once and how He can have all possibilities within His makeup. How things come into existence from nothing.

These are things we will never be able to explain and believing in God has never been able understanding all this but having a faith that God is behind it. It may have explainable mechanisms but that understanding is mans interpretation. As we are seeing we are opening up more and more questions which are showing that what we though we knew as being right may be wrong in the scheme of the big picture of life and existence. Maybe we are just pulling Gods creation apart and trying to put explanations on it. Science can give us some insight into Gods qualities but it wont prove beyond doubt that God is true. This is two different points of view. Science is about things seen and tested to be true. God is about faith and things believed that are unseen. Though within us all is the truth of God and His creation. But man will look for things He can see rather than things that cannot be explained.

 

[Doveaman]

Why do theories need to change in order to match stories in books?

Any theory about history must take into account the records of history.

I am still waiting for the science that says God created anything.

Scientific discoveries are always confirming God's historical record whenever the science is done right.

Funny how no one said that until after the discovery of glaciers. The interpretation of the Bible is what keeps changing.

The biblical record remains the same. Scientific discoveries gives support to that record.

 

[lasthero]

Are you calling me a lunatic because I trust God's word and Jesus and
have different conclusions to the evidence?

If I predicted that God created kinds with complexity that diversified
into lesser creatures like the frogamander into frogs and slamanders
then what would I find? Exact evidence for that prediction.

First thing - I've used that term 'lunatic fringe' with you , I think, three times. Every time, I have to explain to you what it means and that I'm not calling you a lunatic.

You are on the lunatic fringe. Look up the term.

Second, are you telling me you would accept that frogs and salamanders share a common ancestor?

 

[Split Rock]

The one that resulted in the global flood in Genesis 1.

[FONT=&quot]“[FONT=&quot]D[/FONT]arkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Then God said, ‘Let there be light’”, and the rest is history.[/FONT]

That was well before the flood of Noah... before there was even a Garden of Eden... you're not making any sense now.

 

[EternalDragon]

Your conclusions have nothing to do with the evidence, which makes it lunacy. Also, you are referencing the words of men.

Why would you predict frogamanders but not mammal-birds? Why would your predictions exactly match what we would expect from common ancestry and evolution?

God obviously made fowl separate from beasts of the earth and creeping
things and man and whales and fish. So why would we predict a mammal-
bird?

Genesis 1:20
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

 

[Loudmouth]

God obviously made fowl separate from beasts of the earth and creeping
things and man and whales and fish. So why would we predict a mammal-
bird?

Then why do we find fossils with a mixture of features from dinosaurs and birds? Why do we find fossils with a mixture of ape and human features? Why do we find fossils with a mixture of whale and land mammal features? Why do we find fossils with a mixture of fish and terrestrial tetrapod features?

We find the very things you claim shouldn't exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

Any theory about history must take into account the records of history.

How do you determine which stories are accurate records of history?

Scientific discoveries are always confirming God's historical record whenever the science is done right.

First, God didn't write the Bible. The Bible was written by men.

Second, you are throwing out conclusions simply because they conflict with your already held religious beliefs. You can't find any mistake in the methodology that would produce false results. You start with the conclusion, and then throw out any data that conflicts with your preconceived conclusion.

The biblical record remains the same. Scientific discoveries gives support to that record.

What observations, if made, would not support that record?

What features in a geologic formation, if observed, would not support the biblical record?

What features in a fossil, if observed, would not support the biblical record?

What features in a genome, if observed, would not support the biblical record?

If you are going to claim that the evidence supports the biblical record, then you need to show how the biblical record is falsifiable.

 

[EternalDragon]

Then why do we find fossils with a mixture of features from dinosaurs and birds? Why do we find fossils with a mixture of ape and human features? Why do we find fossils with a mixture of whale and land mammal features? Why do we find fossils with a mixture of fish and terrestrial tetrapod features?

We find the very things you claim shouldn't exist.

ONE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.

I don't recall saying they shouldn't exist. ID predicts one designer and
that species just show up fully formed. That is exactly what the evidence
shows.