They've found the "missing link"! Yeah, right!

[rcorlew]

Sorry, I realised that that's what you were getting at, I should have said "appeared to be" older than 6000 years.

My question is, why? God is omnipotent, why can he only make an earth that can sustain plants by making it appear aged? Also, 4.6 billion years is quite a few growth cycles for most plants, wouldn't you say? I understand the principle of God wanting to test people, I don't really agree with it, but the degree of Omphalos/whatever you want to call randomly inserting an age in seems so widespread and extreme as to be excessive to me.



I agree. But the point is, the finds are repeatedly tested and are as independently verified as possible. The results will either back up the theory or it will not - if it does not, the theory will be updated.

And there's a difference between not being above reproach and being flat-out incorrect.



Fair enough - but I can't believe that that applies to all creationists - seeing how vicious some creationists get the moment you start hinting at evolution, I don't buy it.

God did not make it appear aged, He actually aged it. But like I said, I need zero proof, I accepted it through faith that the Genesis account to be literal, and once I did that I see the proofs elsewhere in both the physical world and in the Bible.

I too see both sides of the debate going way overboard and it saddens me. I see people using material that mocks Christians and others saying that others are not Christians, we do not all have the same faith as we are all different parts of the same body. God has given me a gift of the Spirit that is different than others, but they too have different gifts than me.

Let us make sure that our debates here are purely to edify our faith, and if it becomes a stumbling block to others as is evidenced by this thread itself, then the debate should probably be stopped by those who are not assured enough in their own faith to continue.

Do I wish that everyone shared my faith sometimes, yes I do; but in that I realize that I am a teacher of the Word, that there must be those who are the feet and hands and ears and eyes and so forth. If everyone were like me, the body would not be complete and the work of God would suffer. So we are all to seek first the Kingdom, and if anything seems to be getting in the way we must ask if we moved away from what we are supposed to do.

I do like having good debate, but some cannot handle it when others do not share the same views as they do so they get frustrated then they get angry. I used to fall into that camp, and on some immovable things I still am, but sometimes you just have to accept the fact that each of us is unique yet created in His image and just let it be.

 

[LightHorseman]

God did not make it appear aged, He actually aged it.

A. Why?
B. Where is there anything, anywhere, either Biblically or otherwise, to support this claim?

and once I did that I see the proofs elsewhere in both the physical world

For example? I have been begging, literally, hands and knees BEGGING, for some years now, for someone to show me any actual physical evidence of Creationism. None has, as yet, been forthcoming. So if you have any, I'd love to see it.

 

[rcorlew]

A. Why?
B. Where is there anything, anywhere, either Biblically or otherwise, to support this claim?
For example? I have been begging, literally, hands and knees BEGGING, for some years now, for someone to show me any actual physical evidence of Creationism. None has, as yet, been forthcoming. So if you have any, I'd love to see it.

I will give you evidence in faith that you are willing to see it.

Genesis 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

God had to mature His creation otherwise on day 6 when man was created he would not be able to eat. Think about, even a short harvest from seed could take months, Adam and Eve would starve and then poof (I know) no more humans.

Job 38:16 Have you gone to the springs of the sea; or have you walked in searching of the deep?

Those springs that were written of well before Christ were not discovered until 1974(ish). How could anybody write about them if God did not give them the knowledge of them, and how would He know unless He created them?

I can go on if you like, if you are willing to look at them with a critical eye and not with one that is clouded by presumption.

 

[LightHorseman]

I will give you evidence in faith that you are willing to see it.

Genesis 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

God had to mature His creation otherwise on day 6 when man was created he would not be able to eat. Think about, even a short harvest from seed could take months, Adam and Eve would starve and then poof (I know) no more humans.

Job 38:16 Have you gone to the springs of the sea; or have you walked in searching of the deep?

Those springs that were written of well before Christ were not discovered until 1974(ish). How could anybody write about them if God did not give them the knowledge of them, and how would He know unless He created them?

I can go on if you like, if you are willing to look at them with a critical eye and not with one that is clouded by presumption.

Look, I'm really trying to keep an open mind... but how is basic observation of nature evidence of Genesis being literal?

Hindu, Astarte, Nordic and Celtic Creation myths all mention trees having fruit as well, and pretty much anyone can go out and see fruit on a tree with seeds.

So please, maybe explain like you would to a 5 year old, how you see this as evidence of literal Biblical Creationism?

 

[LightHorseman]

Those springs that were written of well before Christ were not discovered until 1974(ish). How could anybody write about them if God did not give them the knowledge of them, and how would He know unless He created them?

There is nothoing on the ocean floor that really looks like a "spring" as such... the sea mount hydrothermal vents to which I imagine you are refering are kind of a shoe horned fit. But even so... the author of the Bible writes about an every day, well known object in an as yet unobserved place. Thats nothing special. I could guess there are springs in South America, even though I've never been there or even heard of them. That doesn't mean I'm inspired by God with knowledge.

What would REALLY be evidence of God, is if one of the Bible authors wrote about something that was either completely unknown, or something that was not a common p[lace at thge time becoming so. Something like, say, vacuum, or microbes, or atoms, or the fare side of the moon, or heck, fossils of extinct creatures! Or extinction at all! Gravity. Jet engines, star fusion, electricity... ANYthing genuinely new that wasn't just an extrapolation of extant observation (e.g. hmmm, we have springs on land, so I guess there are springs under the sea too)

 

[rcorlew]

Look, I'm really trying to keep an open mind... but how is basic observation of nature evidence of Genesis being literal?

Hindu, Astarte, Nordic and Celtic Creation myths all mention trees having fruit as well, and pretty much anyone can go out and see fruit on a tree with seeds.

So please, maybe explain like you would to a 5 year old, how you see this as evidence of literal Biblical Creationism?

The fruit was produced the same day it was created, neither you or I or any amount of science can accomplish that feat. Day 3 of creation has trees and other plants being created and then producing fruit. Even from blossom to mature fruit can take weeks, but here we have this accomplished in one day.

A tomato plant takes on average 80 days to produce this crop that was produced in one day of creation, that is pretty amazing.

 

[rcorlew]

There is nothoing on the ocean floor that really looks like a "spring" as such... the sea mount hydrothermal vents to which I imagine you are refering are kind of a shoe horned fit. But even so... the author of the Bible writes about an every day, well known object in an as yet unobserved place. Thats nothing special. I could guess there are springs in South America, even though I've never been there or even heard of them. That doesn't mean I'm inspired by God with knowledge.

What would REALLY be evidence of God, is if one of the Bible authors wrote about something that was either completely unknown, or something that was not a common p[lace at thge time becoming so. Something like, say, vacuum, or microbes, or atoms, or the fare side of the moon, or heck, fossils of extinct creatures! Or extinction at all! Gravity. Jet engines, star fusion, electricity... ANYthing genuinely new that wasn't just an extrapolation of extant observation (e.g. hmmm, we have springs on land, so I guess there are springs under the sea too)

Hmmmmmm....
I guess that anything like atoms and such would have zero meaning until the 20th century,

 

[Candide]

Yes, until I can see a convincing argument as to why God would create the world in such a way as to leave all the evidence pointing towards billions of years of natural processes, I'll stick with the science explanation thanks

No, I suppose I wasn't clear enough. I believe in evolution. And I justify that by acknowledging that the brain God has given me leads me to believe that evolution is happening, and that the Earth is millions of years old.

 

[LightHorseman]

Hmmmmmm....
I guess that anything like atoms and such would have zero meaning until the 20th century,

19th actually... but that is rather my point. If the Bible mentioned anything that was either unknown, or could not reasonably be infered or assumed by the people at the time of its writing, then THAT would be evidence of divine origin. However, so far as I know, no such example exists. The best we have are shoe horned tenuous examples like the "springs of the sea". No slam dunks like, say, geological fault lines, or the description of the formation of diamonds, or the constancy of the speed of light, the composition of comets, the Kreb's cycle... I mean, its not as though its a short list of things that could have been mentioned and described to show a genuine divine origin.

Why doesn't the Bible mention bacteria? Its not as though the basic description of them would be hard to word, or that there wasn't ample opportunity in the Bible for them to be mentioned, including in Genesis.

 

[LightHorseman]

The fruit was produced the same day it was created, neither you or I or any amount of science can accomplish that feat. Day 3 of creation has trees and other plants being created and then producing fruit. Even from blossom to mature fruit can take weeks, but here we have this accomplished in one day.

A tomato plant takes on average 80 days to produce this crop that was produced in one day of creation, that is pretty amazing.

Um... says who?

I KNOW what Genesis says... you were supposed to be offering me evidence that what it says is literal, accurate history, remember?

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

From the very occasional mention of Rabbi in relation to creation.. they work it out to 6000 years as well.. at least from the various comments. I have doubted the ‘appearance of age’ theory, but it’s true that Adam would have starved, without the fruit already mature.
Creationists had/have a problem trying to explain the star light and how it could of got here. But stars can only be measured up to 300 light years distance from earth. Also the idea that the universe reflects back on itself.. (not a ‘creationist’ theory) speculation in cosmology/astronomy.. there was one thing, of late that has struck me.. after much investigation into Geocentrism.. If the universe is expanding (I don’t believe it is) .. but if it is the case of space itself expanding, in all directions out from itself.. at what level does the expansion occur? They would have us believe that it works on the astronomical level.. but why then does it not work on the micro-level.. atoms expanding apart in that space.. or matter around us expanding in the space around us? Hubble came up with the expanding universe theory, to account for red-shift, but that phenomena can be explained by other means, and Hubble was not sure if it was true himself.
What I find a bit irksome, is the resort to the miraculous, although I believe in miracles, you have to understand creation as a miracle, and that includes some of the stuff with the Ark story.. how everything was gathered in.. or there’s no way that could have been done.. but the fact that Noah’s Ark is now up on a hill in Turkey, doesn’t seem to bother, either creationists, or non-believers. That puzzles me.

 

[LightHorseman]

But stars can only be measured up to 300 light years distance from earth.

Wrong.
Parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cepheid variable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hubble came up with the expanding universe theory, to account for red-shift, but that phenomena can be explained by other means, and Hubble was not sure if it was true himself.

What "other means" explain red shift half as neatly and coherently as the expanding universe?

but the fact that Noah’s Ark is now up on a hill in Turkey, doesn’t seem to bother, either creationists, or non-believers. That puzzles me.

(hint: Noah's ark isn't really on a hill in Turkey)

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Wrong.
Parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cepheid variable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWhat "other means" explain red shift half as neatly and coherently as the expanding universe?(hint: Noah's ark isn't really on a hill in Turkey)

I’m not an expert.. it’s information I have been getting from a particular source at the moment.. Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D (doctorate in General Relativity).. it’s to do with the dissipation of light energy as it travels through the ether.
Noah’s Ark is on a hill in Turkey, and it’s been up there since the 1970’s..
The thing about finding proof of creation.. I could suggest that if the bible could be proved to be reliable, and people of the latter years have been lying in an attempt to counter against that truth, then that would seem to be good proof.. if you could prove that the text in Genesis was demonstrating information which is true, but has been discarded by people as rubbish. That would be Geocentrism.
If you are really interested in proof, and have an open mind, then I suggest the study of geocentrism v heliocentrism.
What I have found, in debates like this, that people believe that all that was established in the 1500’s and the church was proved to be mistaken.. and that is what has led to the trust in science, as apposed to a belief in creation, and belief in God. I think atheism stems from the ‘Copernican revolution’.
From my recent investigations into geocentrism.. it isn’t like that, they did not prove the case for heliocentrism, both models work, but the geocentric model enables an understanding of the universe, which has been thwarted by an assumption that heliocentrism is correct and proven.
I posted some info. on this on another thread, and people thought I was joking.. that’s because they don’t know anything about it, and were taught all they know in school/college, and assume they were taught the truth about everything.

 

[LightHorseman]

I’m not an expert.. it’s information I have been getting from a particular source at the moment.. Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D (doctorate in General Relativity).. it’s to do with the dissipation of light energy as it travels through the ether.
Noah’s Ark is on a hill in Turkey, and it’s been up there since the 1970’s..
The thing about finding proof of creation.. I could suggest that if the bible could be proved to be reliable, and people of the latter years have been lying in an attempt to counter against that truth, then that would seem to be good proof.. if you could prove that the text in Genesis was demonstrating information which is true, but has been discarded by people as rubbish. That would be Geocentrism.
If you are really interested in proof, and have an open mind, then I suggest the study of geocentrism v heliocentrism.
What I have found, in debates like this, that people believe that all that was established in the 1500’s and the church was proved to be mistaken.. and that is what has led to the trust in science, as apposed to a belief in creation, and belief in God. I think atheism stems from the ‘Copernican revolution’.
From my recent investigations into geocentrism.. it isn’t like that, they did not prove the case for heliocentrism, both models work, but the geocentric model enables an understanding of the universe, which has been thwarted by an assumption that heliocentrism is correct and proven.
I posted some info. on this on another thread, and people thought I was joking.. that’s because they don’t know anything about it, and were taught all they know in school/college, and assume they were taught the truth about everything.

I wasn't aware one could rieve a doctorate in "general relativity".

2 questions,

Where was the Ark before the 1970s?

What evidence is there of an "ether"?

 

[herev]

Is this seriously even a debate!?

amazing, ain't it?

Anyone who calls themselves a Christian and believes in evolution, I SERIOUSLY doubt their salvation.

I serve a risen Saviour,
He's in the world today;
I know that He is living,
Whatever men may say;
I see His hand of mercy,
I hear His voice of cheer,
And just the time I need Him
He's always near.

All together now:
Chorus:

He lives, He lives, Christ Jesus lives
today!
He walks with me and He talks with me
Along life's narrow way.
He lives, He live, salvation to impart!
You ask me how I know He lives:
He lives within my heart.
Sorry to disappoint. Saved and Justified believer in Jesus Christ, acceptor of the Theory of Evolution here. You won't get to send all of us to hell--sorry

To the utmost. I commend HisdaughterJen for struggling this much with non-believers.

Who exactly are you calling an unbeliever? An unbeliever in what?

I for one, could not argue for that long with these people.

agreed

 

[herev]

So it's unoriginal. I'd have to do some research on that. If it's the case, then what else in the Bible is unoriginal?

no actually it IS original. it is the DIFFERENCES that are so striking.

If the creation story (such an integral part of the Bible) is fallacious, does this then not open the door to a host of other fallacious accounts?

whoa---no one said fallacious

Many atheists also argue that the gospel stories that recount Jesus' life were not original and that the things we attribute to Christ were borrowed from other pagan deities such as Mithra.

they may indeed argue that, I don't, and this is not that argument.

This is what it leads to. A dismantling of our faith.

I am a fan of studying the scriptures to see what we can learn. I am learly when someone suggests that academic study is a slippery slope that will by necessity lead to having no faith. Academics are not the enemy of faith

When views are contradictory to the extent that evolution and creationism are, it's one or the other.

Well, that is certainly your right to see it that way. I disagree
blessings

 

[herev]

Yes, but many dont seem to get the fact your calling God a liar as Jen has said MANY times. If your saying that He has sinned than does belief in Jesus matter?

Of course, I never read any of your points, if you made any. But just the fact you believe in evolution and you proclaim to be a believer is most telling.

Isn't it typically true that those who hold fast to strict creationist thoughts are literalists and don't believe in "adding" to the Gospel?

 

[herev]

God actually sped up the natural processes to make earth ready,

that's priceless--thanks

 

[Cabal]

Dont be stupid, people who believe outrageous things are always saying that. The disciples have a better idea than me, so they would definitely be right in their criticisms. However, if they were alive today to tell you something similar as we have, or if they were in fact more harsh than myself, you would be ready to tell them the same things you have told me.

Ah yes. "Of course they'd agree with me!" Please.

Dont act like you would actually listen to them, you wouldn't.

Excuse me? You can tell this how? Watch your manners - I'm not telling you what to think, don't you DARE do the same with me.

Also, I shouldn't have to tell you why Genesis isn't a metaphor, since it has already been explained. So quit acting like no one has given you an answer just because they didn't "interpret" the Bible like you do. Lean not on your own understanding.

No, YOU came here acting the arrogant one, YOU can justify why we have to believe your interpretation or else we don't match your standards of Christianity.

"Lean not on your own understanding" - no, I should just lean on the understanding of all you kind and charitable human and flawed creationists, shouldn't I?

I find it baffling that ignorant believers would entrust their belief to some idea created within the past 200 years. Evolution is not an idea thats been passed down the centuries, its a very young idea created by people who never had the slightest amount of faith at all.

Incorrect. Evolution, taxonomy and modern geology were all founded by Christians.

If you feel like turning your back on God because of a few people correcting you, then what does that say about your faith? I, for one, would not walk away from Christianity just because someone is giving me a hard time. As a matter of fact, I feel it would be impossible for me to do that.

Ah. So you'd rather feel like you're in the right than help out someone who's struggling. Very telling indeed.

 

[herev]

I’m not an expert.. it’s information I have been getting from a particular source at the moment.. Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D (doctorate in General Relativity).. it’s to do with the dissipation of light energy as it travels through the ether.

I'm sorry, I'm confused. This is YOUR source? The guy who promotes that the sun and planets revolved around the earth?

Noah’s Ark is on a hill in Turkey, and it’s been up there since the 1970’s..

wouldn't you think Noah would have landed there before 1970? Or do you suggest someone found it and moved it there in the 70's?
The THING you mention up there on the mountain has not been proven to be anything, but it is certainly interesting

The thing about finding proof of creation.. I could suggest that if the bible could be proved to be reliable, and people of the latter years have been lying in an attempt to counter against that truth, then that would seem to be good proof.. if you could prove that the text in Genesis was demonstrating information which is true, but has been discarded by people as rubbish. That would be Geocentrism.

huh?

If you are really interested in proof, and have an open mind, then I suggest the study of geocentrism v heliocentrism.
What I have found, in debates like this, that people believe that all that was established in the 1500’s and the church was proved to be mistaken.. and that is what has led to the trust in science, as apposed to a belief in creation, and belief in God. I think atheism stems from the ‘Copernican revolution’.

seriously, I'm asking to make sure I understand. You are suggesting that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it?

From my recent investigations into geocentrism.. it isn’t like that, they did not prove the case for heliocentrism, both models work, but the geocentric model enables an understanding of the universe, which has been thwarted by an assumption that heliocentrism is correct and proven.

oh dear

I posted some info. on this on another thread, and people thought I was joking..

can you understand why they would think that?

that’s because they don’t know anything about it, and were taught all they know in school/college, and assume they were taught the truth about everything.

well, that might be the reason, sure.
blessings