Pete:
Revert to the versus that I posted on Page 4 near the top. Please explain how these are not applicable.
Revert to the versus that I posted on Page 4 near the top. Please explain how these are not applicable.
Upvote
0
Flames said:If God did not create man in his image, then why did he send Jesus to become a man. How did he become a man?? Why didn't Jesus have to go through evolution given that he wasn't conceived through natural options.
Also, why would God have man evolve over x amount of years and then drop a soul in him and then man sinned. original sin blah blah blah..
Flames said:Pete:
Revert to the versus that I posted on Page 4 near the top. Please explain how these are not applicable.
Flames said:If God did not create man in his image, then why did he send Jesus to become a man.
Flames said:Arikay:
Do not challenge my moral value with the post about checking this out. I have never challenged this guy and so it is all hearsay that it is fraud. Correct, No?? Did you challenge him arikay?? It is his friends money and his contest and he can really do whatever he wants in his prerequisites. Right? I could offer you 250k to have a lab that 1. has proof that a life can spawn from a non-living. By proof, I mean physical and not theory. and 2. watch the non-living turned living evolve.
Who would take me up and succeed on this offer?
Flames said:Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves." because it has Nothing to do with the Beginings of the Universe"
To Arikay:
Time has everything to do with the origin of the universe. Unless you believe that the Universe is God and has always existed and doesn't need a definite beginning.
Space : Same as time really
Matter: This is key also, Where did the matter come from? Again, you cannot trace the origin of the universe unless you state that
A. it always existed or B. God created it, and the universe would then be another mystery if it was option A.
Really, science can't prove evolution. Not in an absolute sense. You know this though. Science is fallible, maybe only .01%, but still is fallible.
That is what makes it science. Has any evolutionist here ever became the "devils advocate" and try to prove creation?? and vica versa with creationists??
I believe that your motivated thoughts (influenced thoughts), will dictate the outcome of your belief to some extent. If you come into it believing that Evolution is 100% accurate or even 90% accurate, then you will be on a path no matter what common sense would tell you. I would say that you should at least say that it is a 50/50 shot at being accurate. Because it is either created by God or created by happenstance.
side note. With all of our grand technology, how come we can't figure out how to make a non-living thing live??
Why were the conditions back however many billions of years ago any different then today. With science you should be able to manipulate the same hypothesised conditions and we should be able to lab-rat evolution.
Why doesn't that kind of stuff happen. Why can't we figure out a way to have evolution begin again?? Anyway though...
Flames said:Arikay:
Do not challenge my moral value with the post about checking this out. I have never challenged this guy and so it is all hearsay that it is fraud. Correct, No?? Did you challenge him arikay?? It is his friends money and his contest and he can really do whatever he wants in his prerequisites. Right? I could offer you 250k to have a lab that 1. has proof that a life can spawn from a non-living. By proof, I mean physical and not theory. and 2. watch the non-living turned living evolve.
Who would take me up and succeed on this offer?
are you saying that the currently held model of physics held prior to the planck time? if so then you are contradicting yourself, because the curent model basically says that it can't hold prior to the planck time.Flames said:Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves." because it has Nothing to do with the Beginings of the Universe"
To Arikay:
Time has everything to do with the origin of the universe. Unless you believe that the Universe is God and has always existed and doesn't need a definite beginning.
Space : Same as time really
Matter: This is key also, Where did the matter come from? Again, you cannot trace the origin of the universe unless you state that
A. it always existed or B. God created it, and the universe would then be another mystery if it was option A.
no but it can falsify it. it hasn't yet though, like it has with creationism.Really, science can't prove evolution.
what do you mean by this? the model could be wrong, it could be completely wrong, but what is fallibe about the method?Not in an absolute sense. You know this though. Science is fallible, maybe only .01%, but still is fallible.
I do believe that many creationists, studying evolution (properly) and science have come to the conclusion that the universe must indeed be old, and that evolution does happen (cosmology and evolution are two distinct branches, don't put them both under the same umbrella please)That is what makes it science. Has any evolutionist here ever became the "devils advocate" and try to prove creation?? and vica versa with creationists??
not really. remember the people who came up with these wacky theories were christians, looking for the literal truth of the bible in the universe around them, they couldn't find it, in fact they found quite the opposite.I believe that your motivated thoughts (influenced thoughts), will dictate the outcome of your belief to some extent. If you come into it believing that Evolution is 100% accurate or even 90% accurate, then you will be on a path no matter what common sense would tell you.
even if science is 100% correct, God could still have done it.I would say that you should at least say that it is a 50/50 shot at being accurate. Because it is either created by God or created by happenstance.
because of statistics. and the complexity of life, and the fact that the really primordial chemicals no longer exist. there is interesting work being done though into finding the smallest number of genes required for a living thing.side note. With all of our grand technology, how come we can't figure out how to make a non-living thing live?? Why were the conditions back however many billions of years ago any different then today. With science you should be able to manipulate the same hypothesised conditions and we should be able to lab-rat evolution. Why doesn't that kind of stuff happen. Why can't we figure out a way to have evolution begin again?? Anyway though...
Flames said:Arikay:
Do not challenge my moral value with the post about checking this out. I have never challenged this guy and so it is all hearsay that it is fraud.
Correct, No?? Did you challenge him arikay?? It is his friends money and his contest and he can really do whatever he wants in his prerequisites. Right? I could offer you 250k to have a lab that 1. has proof that a life can spawn from a non-living. By proof, I mean physical and not theory. and 2. watch the non-living turned living evolve.
Who would take me up and succeed on this offer?
Billions of years old? Not according to true science!
The earth is only seen as looking old because we all take unconscious belief systems to the evidence.
...looking at the world through the lens of the Bible (rather than the humanistic, evolutionized lens of our culture), that it looks young (i.e. thousands, not billions of years old).
1) The continents are eroding too quickly.
If the continents were billions of years old, they would have eroded by wind and water many times over. Mountain uplift and other recycling processes are nowhere near capable of compensating for this.1
2) There is not enough helium in the atmosphere.
3) Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly, and could not have taken long time-spans.
b) Stalactites and stalagmites.
c) Opals.
d) Rock and fossil formation.
5) The oceans are nowhere near salty enough.
Despite some inevitable unsolved problems in such a complex issue (see below for why radiometric dating is not infallible), it is thus not hard to establish:
i) The reasonableness of believing what the Creator of the world says in His Word, the Bible, about the world being thousands, not millions or billions, of years old.
ii) The fact that the earth neither looks old nor looks young as suchit all depends on the glasses through which the evidence is interpreted. We all need to be aware of how much we have been conditioned by our culture to see geological things as looking old.
Nathan Poe said:The offer is rigged. Every self-respecting member of the scientific community knows this. Even fellow creationists avoid Hovind like the plague.
He didn't. He created it via literal Genesis, and thats exactly how it looks. God said He created everything already mature, plants, animals, man, the Earth etc. He put stars in the sky, already visible to the Earth. The only difference is the age. Since you don't believe in God's account of creation, you don't accept that He created everything already mature in less than billions of years, so you assume Genesis is wrong since you conclude that the Earth was created billions of years ago.Pete Harcoff said:Why would God create via a literal Genesis, only to make it look like He didn't create via a literal Genesis?
Jase said:He didn't. He created it via literal Genesis, and thats exactly how it looks. God said He created everything already mature, plants, animals, man, the Earth etc. He put stars in the sky, already visible to the Earth. The only difference is the age. Since you don't believe in God's account of creation, you don't accept that He created everything already mature in less than billions of years, so you assume Genesis is wrong since you conclude that the Earth was created billions of years ago.
Jase said:He didn't. He created it via literal Genesis, and thats exactly how it looks.
Jase said:He didn't. He created it via literal Genesis, and thats exactly how it looks. God said He created everything already mature, plants, animals, man, the Earth etc. He put stars in the sky, already visible to the Earth. The only difference is the age. Since you don't believe in God's account of creation, you don't accept that He created everything already mature in less than billions of years, so you assume Genesis is wrong since you conclude that the Earth was created billions of years ago.