Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why do so many YEC Christians applaud when atheists argue against God, but hardly acknowledge,--even criticize and oppose--fellow Christians who defend God and creation?
Isn't there something wrong with this picture?
It's called 'chemical evolution'. This is at least as old as Alexander Oparin and it is well known. And you think I am ignorant on the issue?
Definition: chemical evolution = the creation of chemical elements in the universe either through the Big Bang, or supernovae called nucleosynthesis.(Wikipedia)
The origin of the species is the origin of life. That life was (i.e. the first living cells according to evolutionists) the first species.
Neil de Grasse Tyson and Donald Smith's "Origins: 14 billion years of cosmic evolution."
That covers it all. But you don't get it. You don't even wish to get it.
I suppose I could ask for an apology for denigrating my education
Remember, you gave me cause to suspect Deism. I didn't pluck it out of thin air, but from your own words....and for accusing me of being a deist
Martyrs44 said:Nature doesn't create and nature doesn't design (program!)anything, but the Lord does. Now...how would you call that last statement 'deism'?
Martyrs44 said:Definition: deist - The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on the natural world. (the Free Dictionary)
You're right God doesn't trick humans, God doesn't make things have appearance of age in order that people will disagree with a modern reading of Genesis, the fact that you are suggesting that somehow the interpretation of the evidence is incorrect is flawed because of the way that the scientific arena of ideas works, heck even the theological arena of ideas works in the same way. You look at the evidence, propose your conclusion from there and people look at your evidence and theirs and then shout you down if you are wrong.
And is chemical evolution (which I have indeed heard of) Darwinian? Why or why not?
Why is it a basic scientific error to speak of chemical evolution and biological evolution as if they were the same thing?
Fundamentalists of a feather flock together?
-CryptoLutheran
I ignore it, I don't have thoughts above my station enough to talk about science in a way that will do justice to the work of God.You have the freedom to be wrong and keep believing the nonsense that the neo's are putting out. But I don't believe them and I am by no means alone. I gave you just a little bit of evidence (if you could grasp it) and you either ignored it or shunned it. That evidence stands.
I don't claim I'm being tricked, I'm fully convinced in my own mind (Rom 14:5), it's you who are saying that I have been deceived and that God says something different, the logical conclusion of these three facts is that you are telling me that God is tricking me, tricking the list of Pastors, Priests and scientists that share my position that science is compatible with the Christian faith that I gave you two posts ago.The presence of C14 in coal, diamonds, etc. is a very stong indication of a young earth. Radio polonium haloes are another. The evidence I posted about the galaxies that reveal 'mature' galaxies at the very edge of what is supposed to be the young part of the universe is a visible fact. There are over a hundred others I can post. So if you wish to continue to be 'tricked' then it is your own fault.
Can you at least get my position correct, God started creating 13.7 bya finished creating 6000 years ago and topped it off with an inauguration week which is recorded in Gen1. As I've already hinted at I'm far more interested in the theological side of the origins theology side of things so if you want to discuss that I'd be willing to oblige, however if you're going to keep dragging me into a discussion of science then I don't really see why I should continue to debate you in this thread.The 'appearance' of age you are tripping over backfires on you & those who likewise have a problem with it.....................why?............because even if you move God's creation back 13.7 billion years to the 'big bang' time then anything that comes out in the wash will have the appearance of age, de facto. So moving the time scale of God's 'act of creation' back like that doesn't solve your problem.
Those 'geniuses' that taught you evolution didn't tell you that, did they?
Wow, I'm seeing an awful lot of thinly veiled insults thrown back and forth, but not much true discussion.
I ignore it, I don't have thoughts above my station enough to talk about science in a way that will do justice to the work of God.
I don't claim I'm being tricked, I'm fully convinced in my own mind (Rom 14:5), it's you who are saying that I have been deceived and that God says something different, the logical conclusion of these three facts is that you are telling me that God is tricking me, tricking the list of Pastors, Priests and scientists that share my position that science is compatible with the Christian faith that I gave you two posts ago.
Can you at least get my position correct, God started creating 13.7 bya finished creating 6000 years ago and topped it off with an inauguration week which is recorded in Gen1. As I've already hinted at I'm far more interested in the theological side of the origins theology side of things so if you want to discuss that I'd be willing to oblige, however if you're going to keep dragging me into a discussion of science then I don't really see why I should continue to debate you in this thread.
O.K. but the 13,7 bya figure is still wrong. There is no subtantive evidence for it, period.
And is chemical evolution (which I have indeed heard of) Darwinian? Why or why not?
Why is it a basic scientific error to speak of chemical evolution and biological evolution as if they were the same thing?
Miller agrees with both evolution and creation and so disagrees with Dawkins, Provine, Myers, et al.
Why do so many YEC Christians applaud when atheists argue against God, but hardly acknowledge,--even criticize and oppose--fellow Christians who defend God and creation?
Isn't there something wrong with this picture?
As a young man I argued for evolution vehemently as a professing Christian. Then I was given a copy of Dr. Henry Morris's book The Twilight of Evolution and I was shocked to discover that he himself was once an evolutionist. His stuff was more clear to me than any evoloutionist author/scientist I ever read.
After reading that it was downhill for evolution for about two years until the final blow. Once I realized that Biogenesis was law and that life can only come from the Creator and that nature is incapable of generating life, there was no question to me that the Bible was accurate in saying, "IN Him is life..." All life on earth came originally from the Lord. Nature can only do what it is pre-programmed by its Creator.
Secondly, the long ages of time in the matter of millions and billions of years is in direct conflict with both scripture and science. I realized that Moses did not waste his time giving the chronology of mankind in the early stages of human history. The fact is that Genesis, Chronicles, and Luke all give the same names...at least in the early stages of human history. The first twelve names given are identical in each of the three accounts. That spoke very loudly to me because I came to realize that Jesus family lineage as stated in Luke has to be legitimate and correct in order to be legal by Jewish law. Otherwise the Lord could not make legal claim to the throne of David when the kingdom comes.
Thirdly, the dating methods that are used in our time are all fraught with assumptions. No matter what the method, we cannot know by observation or even experimentation what the conditions of the so-called 'early earth' were according to evolution theory. The truth is that if God 'spake and it was done'...a la 'Let there by light and there was light' then anything He made would have to have the appearance of age. in light of this there have been countless numbers of rock samples dated in the range of millions of years that were later discovered to come out of volcanoes of the last few hundred years including the ones from Mount St. Helens.
In the last fifteen yrs creation scientists have documented our position quite well in the matter of assumptions. Ex:
http://www.rae.org/pdf/radiodat.pdf
There are many other reasons I rejected evolution or any thought that God created the world in any other way than what He plainly told us in Genesis and the scriptures that confirm what is said in Genesis. There are many and not one scripture suggests evolution or long ages of time as the TE's suggest.
Bible believing Christians agree with evolutionists who freely admit that "Six days you shall labor..In Six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the seas and all that is in them and rested the seventh day" Ex 20:8-11 is not even remotely compatible with evolutionism.
That point is incredibly obvious to even the most casual reader of this topic.
The other thing about that which is incredibly obvious to all the objective readers - is that Exodus 20:8-11 is legal code - not poetry.
Thus on topic like "evolution vs the Bible" it is no wonder that the Christians appeal to an incredibly obvious point admitted to by both Christians and evolutionists like Darwin.
in Christ,
Bob
Martyrs44 said:Then you must have missed what Mark Kennedy and I in particular have posted, at length, with documentation. Check out for instance my OP, post #44 and how I documented my case opposing gluadys.
Don't go there brother. The rebukes that some of us have given the TE's are well deserved. We simply cannot just stand aside and let them get away with the awful unbelief and denials they are displaying on these threads.
cupid dave said:The actual six durations recognized by Science today are called the six Geological Eras:
Actually I must lovingly disagree here. Yom, when qualified with a numeral as is the case in Genesis 1 always means a literal 24 hour day. Also remember that God created the light before the sun, so the sun was not necessary for time keeping. Besides, God was the only one there to keep time anyway, lol.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
A little explanation here: The meaning of yom in Genesis 1
Progmonk this may interest you as well!
I know the first reaction is to fault this rather idiosycratic explanation when the medieval church has pounded away with the errors about the 24 hour day, and ignored Gen 1:14, but bear with me and trust that yowm is defined by the context of the way a passage is to be understood.
The Light that did not at first appear with the Big Bang was delayed for 400 million years because of a Cosmic Dark Age hich we now understand:
Gen. 1:3 And God,(Father Nature who says, "I am," almighty Reality), said, Let there be light: and there was light, (which was delayed by 400 million years after the Big Bang)
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Time: From the Big Bang Creation to the Present[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif](Note: 400 my Dark Age)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif](Amazingly accurate, Genesis claims that light appeared, with some implied delay, after the initial creation of the matter which would ultimately form the heavens and earth.) [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Gen. 1:4 And God, (Father Nature, or almighty Reality), saw the light, that it was good: and God, (Father Nature, or almighty Reality), divided the light from the darkness. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Gen 1:5 ... and the (the Galaxy Stage) evening (of the Big Bang-Formative Era)...[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]THE MORNING OF THE FIRST "DAY"...[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif](Link to Gen 1:6)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Gen. 1:5 ... and the (the Cryptic Stage) morning (of the Hadean Era) were the first "day," (yowm in the Hebrew meaning an unspecified length of time).[/FONT]
[/FONT]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?