Heyo
Veteran Member
I like to see those facts and the logic. We do agree that logic is a valid tool, do we?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I do not think that I haven't seen a new argument in ten years.
The last example that I can think of was a find of bird footprints a hundred million years too early. It turns out the strata was in a mountainous area and had been murdered due to a thrust fault.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
He really screwed up.
The Big Hoax of the Big Bang was discarded decades ago.
That is why they came out with the Big Hoax of Inflation with its Big Fudge factors.
Of course that is known to be false,
They are working on other things, but can’t come up with anything yet.
God predicted this from 2000 years ago with exact timing.
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. - 2 Tim 3:7
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, the Big Bang is still the number one explanation of how the universe began. It has never been refuted.
Where do you get the garbage that you spew so voluminously from?
And no, a quote that is not even a prophecy from a book of myths is not God saying anything.
I can see that logic and rational reasoning are traits that you lack.
What other thread?
This is your proof? What has someone believing in YEC got to do with proving God exists?
Unless you personally know them you're just assuming they were YEC.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
My other thread post #1
So Newton was a young earth creation believing scientist as were the other 33 mentioned in this link.
Were they idiots and liars?
34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians
Here are some of the greatest scientists in history who were also deeply committed to their Christian faiths. Robert Boyle 1627 – 1691. Said that a deeper understanding of science was a higher glorification of God. Defined elements, compounds, and mixtures. Discovered the first gas law - Boyle's...www.famousscientists.org
The article you provided does not state that Sir Isaac Newton was a young earth creationist. And out of the 34 Christian scientists featured in this article, only one is a self-proclaimed creationalist, and that was John Ambrose Fleming. Do you read the articles you reference before posting them?
John Ambrose Fleming 1849 – 1945.
A devout Christian who preached about the Resurrection and founded the creationist Evolution Protest Movement. Founded the electronic age with his invention of the vacuum tube (thermionic valve); devised the hand rules for electric motors and generators.
I've shown you evidence but you have quickly ignored it.
One more for the ignore list.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
If you make a claim, such as "The Big Hoax of the Big Bang was discarded decades ago," then it is your responsibility to substantiate your claim.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Were you there billions of years ago?
Seems to me, you need loads of assumption when proving, refuting what existed back then
But I don't want to discourage you, as I am curious how you manage "without using assumptions" to give evidence of something billions of years ago
Bullpoop. Multiple dating methods that agree and verify eqch other are accurate.
They are based on the scientific method.
Unless ot course you can show that dating methods over 4000 years are based on assumption.
I'll wait
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Verifiable assumptions.
You are ignoring verifiable assumptions with faith-based assumptions.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, that is not an assumption. I do not think that you understand that word. It does not mean "You used science that I do not understand". Changing the speed of light would have endless repercussions. In other words, we could tell.
No, he definitely did not assume "no God". He is another Christian. He believes in God. One does not have to believe all of the myths of Genesis to be a Christian. In fact he probably even believes most of the myths in Genesis. He is just not a YEC. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you have to ignore all of reality to be a Christian.
No, that is an assumption on your part. Worse it is saying that God is a liar again. Why would he do such an insane thing? You are reinterpreting the Bible in light of recent discoveries rather than admitting that your personal interpretation is wrong.
Did you know that the stories of Genesis work as morality tales? They do not work as history. They paint God as evil and incompetent if one reads the book literally. You are also as I have had to point out countless times claiming that God is a liar by insisting that those myths are true. You can't have it both ways. The evidence is clear. But you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence. You doom yourself to being wrong.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Homie, someone has convinced you that in order for you to serve Christ, you have to be a fool and pursue foolish ideas. Whoever that person is, they are wrong. All that is required, according to Jesus himself is that "one take up their cross and follow him." Plenty of people are willing to do that even though they reject the young earth narrative.
Likewise there are folks who "accept the young earth narrative..." but with every fiber of their being they reject the idea of taking up their cross and following Christ.
Having a bunch of trivial beliefs about the age of the universe is easy. Even the devil could do it. Taking up one's own cross and following Christ is hard.
And that has nothing to do with one's belief in YEC.
It's a good thing that, according to scripture, God will judge people according to what they have done. If any of that is true (and I have my doubts about it, but you seem to accept scriptural truth) then that means that God is the ultimate judge. If that is true, I think that's a fair deal. God, if he is indeed an omnipotent and "all good" judge... that makes him super-qualified as the ultimate judge. If he is the ultimate judge of mankind, I pronounce it good.
But I DON'T pronounce it good if any schmuck can just quote the Bible and spread falsehoods. Especially when this effort appears to be nothing but self-glorification (or "institutional glorification) and has little to do with a person's taking up their cross and following Christ.
To me, and I could be wrong, that just seems like pride and hubris.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
So...you're making an assumption that the Bible is an accurate, literal, and factual account? Can you prove this without assumptions?
Colt
Well-Known Member
Worldwide flood was invented by holy men who were trying to establish an authoritative line of decent back to the Adam of Mesopotamian lore.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The original Big Bang would have collapsed on itself after only a billion years, could not explain the smoothness of the background radiation, and had problems with the finite speed of light And other things. Inflation was added afterwards to try and rescue it,
see Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Such a disgrace to human intelligence, and
disrespect for such God as there may be.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Audie
Veteran Member
Telling the exact truth, are we.
Such vast vanity.
The guy who knows more than any
researcher on earth, knows the one correct
religion and which version is right. And
speaks the exact truth.
I wonder what happens along the way to
thecmind of a normally alert and inquisitive child, to
change it to such a stare.
I wish you well, and advise a 180 asap.