User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:13:18 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, the interpretations of YEC can be falsified, but the underlying presuppositions can not be. Anymore than a secular scientist is willing to falsify his materialism/naturalism. Yes they can, and have been. Your search for truth is admirable, but starting with the assumption that the Bible is infallible science is ... choosing poorly. In spite of the recent "trust the science" nonsense, science is the art of always questioning assumptions and previous conclusions, including those of the creation.com. As you learn to analyze things more critically, I think that you will find that site's positions are poorly argued. There is a lot of intentional and misleading cherry picking going on. It turns out that the deeper that you go into science, God and creationism may reemerge, just not 6,000 years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:16:52 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You know what's really weird to me...that people would believe we evolved from some chemicals in a pond. Weird. This is a different topic. And you are correct here. Evolution and biogenesis are different than universal genesis. Being correct on one topic does not mean that you are correct on another topic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:21:33 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: what I don't accept is all the stories about how the universe or us came into being. You are free to accept what you want. However, you are wrong. Two different things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:25:56 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pretty much nailed it. There are a lot more complications (fine tuning and quantum multi-verses) but requiring faith is fundamental. Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:27:04 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The bible does not embrace young earth creationism. Science and the bible to tend to point to an old earth. Not reading 9 pages. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:27:46 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It has been the general view of believers for almost 1850 years. Not sure about your math here, but you might want to check out the Vatican Observatory: https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/ Also, contrary to popular belief, many, maybe not most, astrophysicists are Christians. They believe, just not in the infallibility of the Bible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:30:20 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are free to accept what you want. However, you are wrong. Two different things. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: what I don't accept is all the stories about how the universe or us came into being. You are free to accept what you want. However, you are wrong. Two different things. The bible is largely silent on the manner of things coming in to being beyond God spoke it and it was so. I suppose it could have been written that God spoke it and here is an 87000 page dissertation on the happenings that occurred in it becoming so. That sort of detracts from the general message though. Our concept of time and existence is wholly inadequate to understand it anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:33:35 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: no one really knows how long except that he is relatively new. Actually, we do. There are many fossils in the record that show that H. Sapiens have been around for about 200K years. H. Erectus for 1.5M before that (we are pikers in terms of surviving vs H. Erectus...). Not just the fossils, but tools, fossils of animal carcasses that they ate, their art, etc. Of course, the standard creationist rejoinder is that God put those fossils there. Again, I find that explanation far less probable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:35:21 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If Genesis isn't literally true, the gospel falls. No, it doesn't. It may fail as a scientific work, but that has no bearing on its veracity as a way to live one's life, as noted above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:38:25 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes they can, and have been. Your search for truth is admirable, but starting with the assumption that the Bible is infallible science is ... choosing poorly. In spite of the recent "trust the science" nonsense, science is the art of always questioning assumptions and previous conclusions, including those of the creation.com. As you learn to analyze things more critically, I think that you will find that site's positions are poorly argued. There is a lot of intentional and misleading cherry picking going on. It turns out that the deeper that you go into science, God and creationism may reemerge, just not 6,000 years ago. As for some secular scientist giving up the presuppositions of materialism/naturalism, more than likely he has stop be an atheist. Atheistic science concerning origins is a sham and has poisoned the church. Us in the church need to extract the poison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:39:30 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are free to accept what you want. However, you are wrong. Two different things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:45:58 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Geologists believe that the rate things happen now, such as continental drift, has remained unchanged forever. It is the basis of all of their assumptions about the age if things. I don't believe that's the case. Continental drift has been going on for billions of years, but not at a constant rate. There are many other ways to tell the age of the earth. One surprising fact is that as soon as stars ignite, planets seems to follow shortly thereafter, on the order of 50-100K years (a drop in the bucket astrologically). Earth is not much younger than the Sun, about 5B years or so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:47:57 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: or did you get that idea from some other source? Pretty much ALL other sources. You (and your church) need to understand science better. Again, if you start from an inflexible position, you are doomed to never understand the truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:50:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not sure about your math here, but you might want to check out the Vatican Observatory: https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/ Also, contrary to popular belief, many, maybe not most, astrophysicists are Christians. They believe, just not in the infallibility of the Bible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:52:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's a modern view of the bible, so, no it doesn't. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The bible does not embrace young earth creationism. Science and the bible to tend to point to an old earth. Not reading 9 pages. I have no clue what that means. Studying the Hebrew of the words brings clarity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:55:02 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, it doesn't. It may fail as a scientific work, but that has no bearing on its veracity as a way to live one's life, as noted above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:56:10 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One piece of shot is required. You might need a ton of shot to make it likely that at least one piece will hit, but only one is actually necessary. This basic fact does not indicate support for any weird alien origin of life theory. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ... I mean, how much "shot" would be required to hit a barn ten miles away with at least ONE bb sized pellet? (Provided there was plenty of range and no drop). ... One piece of shot is required. You might need a ton of shot to make it likely that at least one piece will hit, but only one is actually necessary. This basic fact does not indicate support for any weird alien origin of life theory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:56:19 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Scientists measure the age of all the universe to be about 14 billion years old. And 94 billion light years across. Reverse the expansion (shrink) of the universe at a rate of the speed of light. Do that for 14 billion years, the age of the universe, it would be found that the universe began at the tender size of 80 billion light years across. No, that's not how it works. The Big Bang began as a point 13.8B years ago. It had a very brief but significant "inflation" very early on where it grew faster than it had and then the inflation stopped. No one knows why but it the only way that the math worked. That is only a small part of your problem. We can only see back when light began (there was no light at the birth, photons had not come into being, it was not the explosion that is shown on TV - at least not the very beginning.) The problem is that we don't know exactly when this happened, so we don't know exactly how large the universe is. The OBSERVABLE universe is 13.8B away, the unobservable universe is much bigger. And remember, the stars are not moving away from us, space itself is expanding. What is interesting is that we can see almost to creation, but not just stars, but entire galaxies are already visible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 8:59:38 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I though looking up at the stars declares God's glory, but ok. Why can't it do both? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:00:21 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pretty much ALL other sources. You (and your church) need to understand science better. Again, if you start from an inflexible position, you are doomed to never understand the truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:01:40 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can the age of the universe being conclusively proved? Yes (to plus or minus 100M years. It's really old...) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:04:02 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have no clue what that means. Studying the Hebrew of the words brings clarity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:06:09 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why can't it do both? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:07:07 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes (to plus or minus 100M years. It's really old...) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:14:32 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: According to, generally, atheistic science, humans go back 100K's to millions of years. I don't believe any of there bogus assertions. So if your mind is closed, why start the thread? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:17:08 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Either it is the infallible word of God or it's a piece of trash. It can't be both. That is a false dichotomy. You are refusing to entertain the third option, which is that it is imperfect, being written and maintained by man, yet still divinely inspired. And again I ask, which of the many variations of the text is the one true infallible version? And why is that one the one, and not another? ETA - Furthermore, why do you insist that Genesis must be taken absolutely literally in order for the Gospel to be true? Do you also believe that various parables were about true literal events rather than being illustrative stories to convey a message? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:19:30 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Moses, who was talking to God, face to face, and God revealed to Him those scriptures. Not a Biblical scholar, but I don't think that ever happened... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:21:37 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is the modern perversion of science, whereby people erroneously think that physics can address metaphysics. You are correct that it can't answer all metaphysical questions. But explanations of metaphysics that violate physics are incorrect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:26:49 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So if your mind is closed, why start the thread? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:28:45 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is a false dichotomy. You are refusing to entertain the third option, which is that it is imperfect, being written and maintained by man, yet still divinely inspired. And again I ask, which of the many variations of the text is the one true infallible version? And why is that one the one, and not another? ETA - Furthermore, why do you insist that Genesis must be taken absolutely literally in order for the Gospel to be true? Do you also believe that various parables were about true literal events rather than being illustrative stories to convey a message? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:31:01 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not a Biblical scholar, but I don't think that ever happened... Moses would have heard a voice directly, not God's actual face. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:35:41 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which parts are imperfect. I guess God's inspiration couldn't get the job done. Is the book of John imperfect? How about Exodus? As you continue to avoid answering the simple question of which of the many textual variations is the true perfect one - let alone why - this just keeps on being nothing more than  .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:36:19 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryThe author of this article assumes that no one will read his links. He says: One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!” Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. But they do say. And quite clearly. His first link was to this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.09428.pdf where the too cute by half astronomers were making a joke by titling it "Panic! At the Disk", a take on Panic at the Disco. That's all it was, a joke. Their big surprise was that there were more disk shaped galaxies than Hubble showed. No actual panic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:40:49 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Keith Richards. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Criley, please tell us who inhabited the earth before Adam? Keith Richards. I don't use emojis. But that right there almost made me change my mind... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:40:55 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wasn't trying to support some weird alien origin of life. I was pointing out that SOME assumptions of how life may have gotten here, should have gobs and gobs of similar "life building blocks" floating around. And if so, considering how capable it has to be in THAT scenario, it should easily show up in easy to find places other than earth. BUT IT'S NOT THERE! I understand what you're trying to do. The problem is that your question is sort of like asking "how many tickets do you have to buy to won the lottery?" Winning the lottery doesn't mean that you bought gobs and gobs of tickets; it means that you bought at least one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:42:51 PM EDT
[#36]
A day is based on a 24 hour cycle of the earth revolving on it's axis relative to the sun. The earth and sun did not exist before God got started. Time did not exist before God got started. Space did not exist before god got started. Matter did not exist before God got started. The entire reality that our existence was molded in did not exist before God got started. These are all things created for us that do not apply to God. Nothing here applies to him. A day exists to us. Our concept of “days” do not apply to God. He created them for us. It can even be argued that days as we know them to be did not exist until Gen 1:14.
God does not need days to create anything. All powerful, all knowing, all perfect. God could snap all of our existence into being in one of our seconds. The bigger question is why do you think it took God 6 days for creation and why did God need to rest? And is he still resting to this day, or he go back to work on Monday and get started on the next creation? Otherwise what is the point of resting? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:43:06 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, I was kidding around. Chemicals don't change into living things. Well, they did. We just have absolutely no idea how. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:43:52 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you saying God couldn't do that if He wanted to? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: YEC is asinine. It's beyond asinine. It's like saying the Earth was created two minutes ago with everyone's memories intact. No, it's not flawed. YEC teaches that God created the universe 6-10,000 years ago and made it so we can see the light from stars hundreds of thousands of light-years away even though they wouldn't have had time to reach us yet. That's creation with the appearance of age. If you go down that path, yes, you might as well say we were created two minutes ago with our memories in place and everything appearing to be older. Are you saying God couldn't do that if He wanted to? If you believe in a god who deceives, then yes. But scripture tells us that God cannot lie. The more our observations and reason teach us of nature, the more we learn about God. (Romans 1:19-20) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:53:06 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe do a study on the philosophy of science and see how fallacious it is, being wholly dependent on empiricism and inductive reasoning. Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe do a study on the philosophy of science and see how fallacious it is, being wholly dependent on empiricism and inductive reasoning. I have, and your understanding of science is woefully inaccurate. Atheistic science concerning origins is a sham and has poisoned the church. Us in the church need to extract the poison. Whoops, things just got interesting... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 9:54:08 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which parts are imperfect. I guess God's inspiration couldn't get the job done. Is the book of John imperfect? How about Exodus? How do you feel about the perfection of the book of Sirach? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 10:02:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Explain to me how life came about, explain how the universe came about. As I said before, no ones how life started. However, after it started, evolution played a significant role over the billions of years after life started. There are minor evolutionary effects like Darwin's goldfinches, and major evolutionary changes, which have not been explained. The door is wide open for God to have influenced both the creation of life and major evolution. Minor evolution is pretty well understood. As for the universe, like evolution, there are thousands of books and papers on how it occurred. However, when you come to the primordial foam disturbance that set off the big bang, agian, no one knows and there is plenty of room for God there, especially the deeper you go. But billions of physics data points disprove the YEC theory. YEC is simply impossible. Not knowing the answer to every question does not mean that 99.9999% of what we do know is wrong. Only that the last fundamental questions are still in doubt. Again, you are starting from a position that nothing will change your mind. Unfortunately, this is not the way to grow or find truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 10:05:19 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What I did find was a bunch of guys, whom I would question whether they were actually Christians or not. Normally, I would laugh at your assertion that the Vatican is staffed with non-Christians, but with the current Pope, I am not so sure... No idea what the rest of the post meant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 10:07:12 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Daniel 8:26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days. So, this scripture is dealing with a vision, that's the first problem with your usage. Visions aren't correlated one for one concerning something like Genesis 1, which is history, not a vision. Secondly, the vision just speaks of many days, not billions of years. If God wanted to convey billions of years I'm sure there is a Hebrew for many years . I would say that the "morning and evening" comports nicely with the many days that follow, indicating actual days are being spoken of. The words, context, and similarity in use are what matters. The pattern. The time span isn't important, only the event and the fact that there was a distinct beginning and end of the process. The fact that God crafted speaks for itself, there is no need to dress it to appear more miraculous than it already is, with a time limitation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 10:08:08 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For example, the seven days of creation have an weird format. Day 1 is creation of light. Three days later is the creation of the sources of light (sun and moon). Day 2 is the creation of the firmament (division between the water and heavens). Three days later is the creation of the sea and air creatures (winged animals). Day 3 is the creation of dry land and plants.... three days later is the creation of land animals and people. Do you catch this pattern? The days of Genesis are not in any kind of chronological order, they are a poetic structure... Actually, it's not all the weird in the way you're thinking. It's weird in how it's scientific. For example: Light would have had to exist first. A source of light cannot exist if light does not first exist as it would have no function. Just because light exists, doesn't mean it was visible until the light sources were created. Like programming a sim.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 10:12:40 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can't know truth at all without an absolutely objective and truthful source from which to start, that's right, that would be God. Ever notice how, just when scientists think they got something sort of figured out, bam, it slips away to the horizon, and off they go to find what they is next thing they think will further explain whatever. Science isn't a way to find truth, it's good at making things, that's about it. Yes! That is what science is! That is how progress is made. Every single thing that you use all day is due to the success that scientific process. Your philosophy is exactly the opposite. It stops at the Bible. No matter what scientific evidence is presented, it stops at the Bible. Anyway, there is no use arguing with a closed mind. I am a newbie and took advantage of this thread to learn the UI and get used to the site. I am impressed with the Biblical scholars here, very impressed. It seems that most of them are still interested and searching, or realized that these discussions, although interesting, do not have any bearing on how to live your life or your salvation. Enjoy your scientific ignorance and false sense of superiority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 10:20:51 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A day is based on a 24 hour cycle of the earth revolving around the sun. Oops. The day is based on the earth's rotation. A year is based on revolving around the sun. Want to win a bar bet with a bunch of nerds? Ask them what the planets revolve around. They will always say the sun, which is wrong. Yep, the planets do NOT revolve around the sun. The planets revolve around the center of gravity of the solar system. Sometimes that point is inside of the sun, a lot of the time it is actually outside of the sun, it all depends on where Jupiter and Saturn are lined up. Pretty cool factoid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 10:21:12 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wasn't trying to support some weird alien origin of life. I was pointing out that SOME assumptions of how life may have gotten here, should have gobs and gobs of similar "life building blocks" floating around. And if so, considering how capable it has to be in THAT scenario, it should easily show up in easy to find places other than earth. BUT IT'S NOT THERE! We've done little more than fly by our nearest neighbors and most of those are very inhospitable to life. The current estimate for the number of alien civilizations just in our galaxy is staggering. We've just barely started to discover some of these worlds even exist and you want irrefutable proof of alien life lightyears away? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 10:24:05 PM EDT
[#48]
The history of a short universe as written in the Bible is no more unbelievable to me than a creator God. Believe it or don't. If God could create the universe he could create it already in motion. The alternative is to have him create whatever amino acids and let it grow into people over 4.3 billion years because that's what we know. "We", being scientists, educators, politicians.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 10:26:23 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oops. The day is based on the earth's rotation. A year is based on revolving around the sun. Want to win a bar bet with a bunch of nerds? Ask them what the planets revolve around. They will always say the sun, which is wrong. Yep, the planets do NOT revolve around the sun. The planets revolve around the center of gravity of the solar system. Sometimes that point is inside of the sun, a lot of the time it is actually outside of the sun, it all depends on where Jupiter and Saturn are lined up. Pretty cool factoid. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A day is based on a 24 hour cycle of the earth revolving around the sun. Oops. The day is based on the earth's rotation. A year is based on revolving around the sun. Want to win a bar bet with a bunch of nerds? Ask them what the planets revolve around. They will always say the sun, which is wrong. Yep, the planets do NOT revolve around the sun. The planets revolve around the center of gravity of the solar system. Sometimes that point is inside of the sun, a lot of the time it is actually outside of the sun, it all depends on where Jupiter and Saturn are lined up. Pretty cool factoid. I just read that quote and was like uhhh....this guy probably meant axis. And then I saw it was me. I'm just gonna go fix that real quick....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2023 10:30:37 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just read that quote and was like uhhh....this guy probably meant axis. And then I saw it was me. I'm just gonna go fix that real quick.... Too late. :D 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
