It seemed to me that you were equating the Bible as being literally part of God. Hence I commented that it's a Trinity we accept not a four-fold entity.
Upvote
0
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.
Good night and God Bless.Project 86 said:I'm off to bed, I don't know if I'll revisit this thread. I often don't even revisit this site. My IM information though is in my profile and I'm more then willing to talk on there with people that believe in evolution or people that beieve in YEC. Night everyone!
Project 86 said:It's statements like this that bug me. Many reasons why. The statements are not true and you do not even attempt to back them up being the main reasons I have problems with posts like this. Geology shows much evidence in fact of a worldwide flood. You have layers, rock formations and fossils that point to one. I know it's a statement you probably have heard a lot but that doesn't make the statement any less true.
Chi_Cygni said:GodSaves said:Notice as well there are scientists who are not believers in God who also make mention that there had to have been some miracle for life to come forth in 4.6 billion years.
Agreed. Though personally I think the arguments on both sides are weak from a scientific perspective.
As a professional scientist it is statements like this that bug me. Creationist geologists over 150 years ago falsified the Flood. You can whine and whine about it - but that is a fact recorded in the geology texts by Creationists.
pressingon said:
Not to nitpick on a single statement or take your words out of context, but could you clarify this response a bit?
Just wanted to make sure I understood what you intended to convey.
Once a theory is thrown away, it can never come back. That's exactly like thinking new evidence could somehow bring back the Ptolemaic cosmology. Young Earth Creationism was false 150 years ago, is false now, and will always be false.Enigma'07 said:
New evidance turns up every day. I would look at that befor I site evidence from 150 years ago.
Then why is there a movment with many of todays leading scientists FOR YEC? Can you tell where you get this geological evidence. I would be interested in reading it.In science, you can prove something absolutely false. This was done with Young Earth Creationism 150 years ago, as I said, when geologists discovered features in the Earth that could not exist if it was only 6,000 years old. Scientists throughout all of those other fields have found nothing but more damning evidence.
No, there is not. There is a movement for Young Earth Creationism, but it is not in "today's leading scientists." This isn't a personal attack, but it exists predominantly in a body of uneducated Bible literalists who allow those in positions of authority to deceive them.Enigma'07 said:Then why is there a movment with many of todays leading scientists FOR YEC? Can you tell where you get this geological evidence. I would be interested in reading it.
Enigma'07 said:Then why is there a movment with many of todays leading scientists FOR YEC? Can you tell where you get this geological evidence. I would be interested in reading it.
You must not be a big fan of truth either...oh wait, I already knew that.Chi_Cygni said:I'm not a big Strobel fan. But I want to hear of your scientific expertise.
I'm not sure if Enigma replied to this already but if you haven't, don't. Chi's just trying to lead you (and everyone else for that matter) down rabbit trails. He has made it clear that he believes the best stuff is the evidence that cripples the other model. Instead of being distracted with this, list some stuff that defies the possibility of an old earth, Enigma.Also please give me at most two strong 'scientific' arguments you, in light of your expertise, believe are cogent arguments for a young Earth.
I ask the same question to you Chi.Chi_Cygni said:Are you sure it's not your wishful thinking that leads you to conclude they are good points?
Amen to that.GodSaves said:Chi_Cygni, is there ever a time that you aren't condescending or rude? Look at your signature, people are stupid. Great statement of judgement for a Christian to go around with.
Everyone who believes in evolution easily dismisses ICR as being fools or foolish. Who is it Chi that you, who claims to be a Christian, are calling a fool? Hmm, lets see ICR is made up of other Christians and you are calling other Christians fools. Doesn't seem too healthing for Christians as a whole. ICR has many well educated men/women of science with, yes a biased opinion on the creation of the world because who do they believe, GOD.
Then we have scientists who are not men/women of God(on an generalized scale of the total) claiming a big bang type theory and evolution. These people are also biased because they want to disprove creation. Who do you put your faith in for the creation? The men and women who, on the majority, do not believe in God, and are trying to disprove the idea of God in creation.
Shouldn't science be unbiased and produce the same results no matter what your faith or non faith is? Of course. Notice as well there are scientists who are not believers in God who also make mention that there had to have been some miracle for life to come forth in 4.6 billion years. Some of these people are saying that aliens planted seeds in the ocean and that is where we came from. Maybe this will be your new opinion of how life came to be, when everyone realizes that a cell, as complex as it is, could not have evolved out of the primordial soup. Or wait, maybe you will believe that God created this primative type ape and that is where we came from. Then God's image must be a primative ape, since God said He created man in His image. But that is proved wrong because Jesus was a man not a primative ape.
What I find to be convincing to me is that science keeps evolving and changing its "facts" on how things began. All because tomorrow brings more evidence that shows they were wrong with their previous assumptions. Creationism has never changed.(Genesis Literal) Creationism doesn't have to change to covers everything in a very logical way if you do believe in God, because God can do all. But I guess many need to have evidence of this so they can believe. And here it is yet again, FAITH. Faith that one believes God did what He says He did.
Which claim gives adds ammo to those who do not believe, creationism or evolution? It is too easy for one to dispute the Bible and its authority if you say that if a part of the Bible doesn't produce evidence that we can see at this moment, then it must be taken allegorical. And it must also be taken allegorical if we do not understand how it could have happened like it did. It also must be taken allegorical if our minds cannot grasp what happened. So one will say, as they have, that Jesus, salvation, God, hell and heaven, all must be taken allegorical as well, because we cannot grasp the concept of heaven and hell, we cannot understand how we can have salvation, and certainly we have never seen God so He is allegorical as well. Heck, it is all just a lesson in life created by man without any intervetion by the Holy Spirit, let alone God or Jesus. I am hoping that you are not apart of the believing in this 'new translation' of the Bible to come from and Angelican Bishop and a Baptist Pastor that turns almost all the teachings to teach the opposite.
These are the type of statements I have come across on this forum as well as in life due in part to people saying such miracles are allegorical. I am aware that you will say that creationism adds more ammo to the non-believers because it is too big to comprehend, and there is no found proof. Of course there is no found proof for the big bang type theory, or evolution as far as where man evolved from. And you as a TE believes that God is all powerful and could have created everything if you took Genesis literal. So you still have the same argument as a literalists, is God all powerful, can He do miracles? Such as walk on water, calm the storm, raise the dead, feed 5,000 with a few loaves and a few fish, call out demons.
L'Anatra, I am trying to put together a thorough answer to your question on Genesis 1 and 2. I could give a simple answer but that doesn't really help any. =)
God Bless
Why do you state as fact what you can't possibly know? Pride comes before a fall,a haughty spirit before destruction. I would suggest to you as a brother in Christ to not believe everything you here. And in evolution theory i would ask you to remember this. Interpretations are many for lots of facts, but only one truth for each of those facts. May the Lord open us up to them. Satan is a counterfeiter, Christ is the Truth.Chi_Cygni said:There isn't.
Their numbers are miniscule and not one of them, I repeat for effect, not one of them is a leading scientist.
In fact almost all of them are either MD's or engineers or people who got a science PhD and then left science 20, 30 or 40 years ago.
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?