now tell them about women's menstrual cycles following the moon and the waves of contractions when they give birth syncing with ocean tides and blow their ignorant minds!
I'm Christian and know full well how the tides work, etc. Yes, we can believe in science too and there was no need to be rude and put believers of God down.
19
deleted
· 9 years ago
Oh I'm not doing that at all, I'm talking about creationists not cristians
Not true about the 6000 years part. It depends on what kind of believer in the bible you are. Fun fact if you are interested: Biblically, it says that the earth was created in 7 "days." But I want to note that 1. Time was man created, not God created. And 2. The word day in hebrew was loosely translated. Their word for day was lso used to mean a set period of time. We have no idea how long those "7 periods of time" are. They could jave very well been millions of years apart because God has no concept of time.
So there you go guys. Please.stop assuming that every creationist is stupid becase I assure you, we aren't.
Creationists believe in young earth. If you do not believe in young earth you are simply a regular Christian, and are not retarded. For the sake of your reputation, don't call yourself a creationist. Also, food for thought. Those 'seven periods' may have been eras in the evolution of life, such as the Precambrian era.
Old Earth Creationism is an umbrella term used to describe biblical creationists who deny that the universe was created within the last 6,000 to 10,000 years over the course of six consecutive 24-hour days. Rather, Old Earth Creationists believe that God created the universe and its inhabitants (including a literal Adam and Eve) over a much longer period of time than is allowed for by Young Earth Creationists.
It's still creationism. Just old earth creationism. I do not believe we evolved.
How did complex information, information which is true even if all universes cease to exist, originate in informationless matter? How can the non create its creator? What I mean by this is how can simple hydrogen, or stone, or water, create the laws whereby the sum of our bodily substance stands in space and time with self-awareness? One plus one is one, even without a universe. Whence come these laws, that are true even if there never was an is? Furthermore, it is reprehensible of the individuals here to be convinced of their own view simply by insulting the intelligence of those who do not share that view. While there is a very vocal community of evolutionists here tonight, none of you has convinced me of the veracity of your philosophy with wit or rhetoric. So often I only see "HEY STUPID YOU NOT ENLIGHTENED STUPID!"; and so your belligerence is your only reward for your troubles. I shall continue to believe in God, and in His organization of our world, for Man is finite and arroga
and arrogant, vacillating minute to minute on right and wrong, moral and immoral. I prefer to be accountable to that intelligence which is consistent enough to give unalterable physical Law, and the miraculously complex information and design that upholds our fragile bodies. Mostly I find evolutionists are so zealous for their viewpoint simply because they do not wish to be told what to do, by anyone, anywhere, at any time. If there is no God, you can eat a baby without fear of retribution from that God. But we recoil at the mere mention of such an act, even though the animal world perpetrates this daily. We are NOT animals. We are made in the image of God, or we would not be so offended by hypocrisy and abuse. Good luck to you all, and please, for your own sakes, reconsider.
It is good to be civil in times like this. But there is just overwhelming evidence the earth is billions of years old, not just 6000. And for evolution too. Just too much evidence. I'll admit it, I don't believe in any god. Nothing anybody says will convince me to change that, and I'm sure nothing I say with change your viewpoint, so I won't try. But the earth is more than 6000 years old, and that's a fact, no matter what you believe in.
Then consider reading "In The Beginning" by Walt Brown, 8th edition; and "Bones of Contention" 2nd edition, by Marvin Lubenow. Not all evidence to the contrary is published, for debatable and wholly obvious reasons. Good luck to you, and best regards. I hope these books give you opportunity to ruminate, if you elect to read them. I would buy them for you myself, but I am not wont to dispense my personal information in this era.
Then I ask you to watch a debate between John Hamm and Bill Nye on whether the earth is only 6000 years old. It is quite good. Good points brought up on both sides
I couldn't be more in agreement. Also, I find that if we mind our own business, and if we have a concern about an acquaintance to pray silently instead of judge them, remembering that even Christians are abjectly filthy people who need Jesus, we keep more friends, and loyal.
Well in my opinion, there is overwhelming evidence FOR creation, ~6000 years ago. And I think anyone who doesn't believe in the literal translation of Genesis cannot have any good groundings in Christianity.
Complete Creation series: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL11166601CA0FB279
To atheists/anti-creationists: I respect your religion, but if there is no God and we did somehow evolve, you cannot tell right from wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, and there is no logical concept of truth.
However, there is a God, and he has given us a history of our world in the form of the Holy Bible.
There will come a time when you die that you will be held accountable for your sins. All people have sinned and deserve to go to hell. However, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16 NKJV). Jesus died on the Cross to save You. He loves you! All you need to do is confess your sins to Him and He will forgive you.
"For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 8:38-39 NKJV
http://bible.com/114/rom.8.38-39.NKJV
Jesus Loves You.
I don't give a crap about what your precious book says. If you want to make a convincing argument, give me scientific proof without mentioning the bible, because from what I can tell, the bible is the only real "proof" you have
3
deleted
· 9 years ago
Okay, I'm gonna go out on a limb here as an agnostic. I honestly think we don't know whether a God exists, but I do think that we know ~almost~ for certain that evolution happened. I say 'almost' because we can't really know anything for certain (in my opinion). But something I do disagree with is these ideas that no god = no morals. I've never really believed in a God but I have a full, strong set of morals that I stick by....with no God to lead me. Please, if you want us to respect you, respect us and don't imply we have no morals.
I have very strong morals and I am about as atheist as you get. And don't only use the bible for evidence in an argument, because as the saying goes, if the bible is proof that god exists, then comic books are proof that spiderman exists
I don't believe in God (though i do believe that Jesus existed and i'm in agreement with his ideas). I personally believe that evolution made us what we are, but really, who knows? I could be wrong, and so could everyone else with the same or different ideas. The truth could be something no one has thought of. Be that as it may, when i examine all the evidence towards different theories, evolution seems to be, by far, the most realistic. The Bible is an excellent book, which i recommend everyone read, but it was not written by an omnipotent being - it is a collection of stories orally passed down through hundreds of generations and eventually recorded. Thus, the stories would have been greatly changed throughout the centuries. Human error eliminates any certainty here, and in any case, the stories in the Bible may have originally intended to be only that - stories. Evolution is supported by ideas that make the most sense to me, and thus is what i believe.
Actually, just something interesting here, the earliest known copies of the Bible ever found match up almost exactly with the translations we have today (allowing for language differences.)
And? What does that matter? They could still just be stories from way back when, you don't know. Maybe in 2000 years people will worship Harry Potter And believe it to be truth
You may have good morals, but based on your belief of origins you have no logical reasons as to why you should have those morals. If Evolution were true, how can you tell right from wrong?
So you doubt the written words in an ancient book less than 10,000 years old, yet you have a firm belief in what *some* scientists think happened billions of years ago? (around 4,600,000,000,000 years)
And other *scientists* Do believe in young-earth creation. https://youtu.be/Gsrd3y0YooI
Yeah "some" scientists(stupidly) believe that earth is only 6000 years old. The majority do not. And yes I doubt the written words of a many times translated old book compared to thousands of reasons and pieces of evidence that prove earth's age. And as for my morals, I don't need any fricking higher power to tell me what is right from wrong, and if you do, then you should be questioning yourself. Your argument makes no sense, and you should just stop while you're behind.
Okay. As you know, the moon orbkts the earth, and it has its own gravity field 1/6 as strong as earth's. Wherever the moon goes, the water on earth is attracted to it. So where ever the moon is, right underneath it is high tide, and on the opposite side of the world it is low tide, because the moon sucks it all over there with its gravity. Basically
Guys. I'm sorry. But what grade are you guys in? Like is this not common knowledge? I'm really not trying to disrespect you all, I'm genuinely asking why were you guys not taught this?
Fun fact: Kepler originally proposed that the moon caused tides through gravity (although he believed it to be a repulsive force instead of an attractive one), but Galileo shot him down, saying "if the moon causes it, why doesn't the sand also move?" and argued that tides were caused by the earth's rotations around its own axis and around the sun syncing up to cause oceans to slosh around and create tides. Because Galileo was a very good debater (and Kepler was unpopular), his theory was the more accepted one until Newton came up with his gravity stuff and proved Kepler right.
Because the bible is not a factual piece of evidence. Science thrives on solid facts that are tested and repeatable at any time. Plus, that's only one book. Science can give thousands of sources.
Hello! I find all this debate very interesting. May I offer an idea?
Science does, indeed, thrive on facts. However, every "fact" starts off as a theory. For instance, Galileo had a theory that the earth revolved around the sun, not vice-versa (which has obviously been proven true.) Newton had some very interesting theories on the way objects interact with each other-- which have since become the Laws of Physics! Some theories are obviously false-- like the "miasma" theory of disease spread, popular in the Renaissance era-- and some are just plain silly, like the prevailing idea in the Medieval Age that maggots came from rotten meat! But people tend to forget that some theories cannot be proven nor disproven, such as the respective theories of evolution and creation. To quote Stark, "...science thrives on solid facts that are tested and repeatable at any time." Unfortunately, we can have no conclusive evidence for either of these prevailing theories, because we can neither travel
however many years into the past and observe the birth of the universe and the subsequent formation of life, nor can we "repeat the experiment" by creating another universe ourselves.(If you CAN create universes, my apologies. *ring ring* Hello, may I have the number for SHIELD Director Coulson, please? I have an 084 in need of containment...) Joking aside--many theories, evolution and the big bang theory in particular, are so widespread that they are assumed by many to be fact, when they are actually no more provable than their counterpart, creationism. So I would ask you all to keep open minds, and not take things for granted, or mindlessly believe the word of anyone, be it Bill Nye or Moses. Look for evidence for yourself: see if historical events match up, or certain things don't sound right, or if one side has a truly stronger argument. THEN, once you have considered all viewpoints, weighed the evidence, and are willing to discuss civilly and unemotionally, please join the debate!
The guest is very well spoken indeed. But there are some things we can prove about the creation of the earth. The big bang is a great theory because we can prove galaxies are accelerating away from a single point, as if they had been exploded out. Creationism believes that the earth is only 6000 years old and just popped into existence. There are so so many facts, provable, repeatable facts, that definitively point to an answer that says the earth is around 4 billion years old.
There are too many to list them all but a few are the layers in rock that contain different eraz of biological life. There has not been a single case of one time zone being in another wrong layer. Ever. Another is all the dating methods we can use, to which none of them come close to only 6000 years old. Another is snow and ice layers in the attic. Each year a new layer is made because of the cycle of the seasons. Scientists have drilled holes into them and pulled up tubes with HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of layers in them. They don't prove the earth's age because of the earth's cold and warm cycles when snow melts and it has to start over again, but they sure as heck prove its a lot older than what creationists think. Facts.
Fossils are only known as "fossils" when an impression of the original animal remains, or when all the minerals are replaced by rock, this process requires millions of years, therefore disproves the notion of the earth being 2000 years old. But I still respect your opinion and hope we can get along :)
Your reasons suck sublimegamer. Radiocarbon dating does work, otherwise it wouldn't be used. No clue what you're getting at with fossils... And I can garuntee there are no overlaps in layers of what I'm talking about. You might be thinking of something else. And who cares about a bomber? That has nothing to do with this argument. Try and disprove the ice layer argument I dare you. You should watch a debate between John Hamm and Bill Nye. It's 2 hrs long but very worth the time. Seriously please watch it.
Hello, me again, I'm the same guest that wrote the above comments about theories. (If you like, you can call me Risei no Koe.) I'm so glad to see you all discussing this topic (which I think we can agree is a very touchy one) like rational, civilized people! Please keep on in this vein! (And please, always check your facts, refrain from using insults or getting emotional, and put your chairs and tray tables in the upright position!;)
Ice rings are not annual rings. They simply mean warm, cold, warm, cold. This can happen many times over the course of a year.
Quick, to the point explanation (3min):
https://youtu.be/VFwKnjrlSCE
And, sure thing Risei no Koe!
And to stark and all others: I respect all of your beliefs and don't want you to feel invaded/attacked, I just want people to see both sides of the argument and for them to research it themselves and find out the truth. God bless.
Different Radiocarbon dating methods can get dates different from each other by a factor of 20000. From 10000 years old to 2.6 billion years old, on a rock sample known to be 800-1000 years old... https://youtu.be/bGB-PfFSV2w#t=03m24s
You're wrong about the ice rings... They only happen once a year. Dude give it up the earth is say more than 6000 years old! How do you think oil and coal form? They take millions of years to form, with no shortcuts. There are literally trees older than 6000 years. You know how we know that? Because they form rings every year, and some scientist took a sample of the trunk and counted every single ring. Plus even if radiocarbon isn't the most accurate all the time, which I don't believe, there are still hundreds of other dating methods, which all put earth at much older than 6000 years old. And if you're trying to use YouTube as sources, don't. Use actual scientific papers not written by creationist scientists, to avoid bias.
There's a difference between a slab of ice and a layer of ice. A tree's ring can be real thick, but it's a one-year thing. A layer of ice can be real thick, but it's a one-year thing. I think that's what stark's saying.
At least I label my sources. If I don't use Creationist scientist sources, anti-creationists like you shouldn't use Evolutionist/Atheist scientist sources in your own arguments, 'to avoid bias'. Why can't I use Creationist sources? There will always be bias both ways.
Also, carbon-14 dating shouldn't get ages over 100,000 years At Most, as there would be absolutely zero Carbon-14 left in the specimen. https://youtu.be/3wMV8Hw99yg
Oil can be made in 20 minutes in the lab. It can be made by massive amounts of pressure, such as those present during Noah's Flood. It does not take millions of years to form oil. https://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=51 "Argonne National Laboratories has reported on research proving that under natural conditions coal may be formed in only 36 weeks."
Even on Wikipedia, the oldest *verified* age of a tree, a Great Basin bristlecone pine, is only 5,064 years old. All ages over 6000 years are *estimated* ages for clonal tree colonies. A Quaking Aspen colony called Pando has trees with a lifespan of only 130 years; they continually die and are continually renewed by their roots. The total age of the colony, 80,000-1,000,000 years, is an evolutionary *estimation*. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees
You're seriously going to try and convince me that Noah's flood happened too? Geez... And guess what. Even if oil can be made on 20 minutes in a lab, there are no labs in nature, so that argument is invalid. And there are other methods than just carbon dating. Andthere you go you just said it yourself. Anything over 6000 are estimated, and they estimated 80,000-1,000,000 years for that colony. Therefore, they have been around for more than 6000 years by that logic. So so far all you've done is counter my arguments (unsuccessfully). I would like you to give me reasons why I should believe you that earth is only 6000 years old. Oh and I don't want to hear you say god or use the bible as a source. Do it scientifically. Did you watch the debate get?
Wasn't there a small documentary about Noah's flood and how it was a devastating local flood, not a worldwide one? Because to Noah, anything within 50 miles is his whole world so might as well call it a "world flood"?
I heard a thing where a huge volcanic eruption caused a tidal wave that swept through the Mediterranean and left huge dry spots behind it temporarily. Around the same time period as mosos was said to have parted the seas
If it was only a 'local' Flood, why does the Bible state: And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.
Genesis 7:19-22 NKJV
http://bible.com/114/gen.7.19-22.NKJV
It was not a local Flood, it killed *all* living things on the Earth.
Kent Hovind's theory on how the Flood happened:
https://youtu.be/cfffRl4RT4s
Stark, I would like to know how you can be sure you are telling the truth? If we are the product of random chance and there was no designer, how can you trust your own mind? It was not made for a purpose. You do not matter in this world. Why are you even arguing with me, there is no point. There is no right or wrong. You cannot 'sin'.
That would be 'true' if evolution were 'true'.
But there was a designer, a loving God who cannot lie. He has given us His written word, the Bible, as an ultimate source of truth in this world He created. I can believe that all things written in the Bible are true because He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
You do have a purpose in this world. He loves you so much that He gave His only Son as a sacrifice for you. He has a plan for you and you need to let Christ enter your life.
If you knew even half of everything (which you don't), is it possible for God to exist in the other half you don't know of? Yes it is.
I cannot even fathom the stupidity of what you just said.... Go ahead believe what you want but don't try and spread the stupidity. I'm done debating with you. You're just too stupid.
Because it was written in the perspective of the mortal man. One who has probably never traveled more than fifty miles from his birthplace. And anything fifty miles past that is pretty much the whole world. Common sense man.
Hello again, Risei no Koe here. I would like to mention that, even if you disagree with someone's beliefs, it is no reason to sink to insults such as 'stupid.' (Stark, here's lookin' at you...) As a fairly nonbiased outsider looking in on this conversation (please note, I see the sense in both viewpoints and thus have not gotten involved in the debate itself), I must say that out of the debaters, sublimegamer has both argued his(her? Um, their) point more convincingly than Stark, and showed better self-control. They have kept a cool head, backed up their statements with sources, and have not sunk to personal insults. Stark, I know that you must be an intelligent person-- so please, act like it. Insults are the weapons of those who are weak, and those who cannot otherwise prove their point.
Please, do not sink to those levels.
And at sublimegamer: you have made some very interesting points. Kudos.
What on earth gives you the right to say that that idiot has argued his point better?? Sure, freedom of speech, but ypure still wrong nevertheless. He's made really stupid points, which I've countered. He had yet to back up his arguments with scientific data. I asked him to give me reasons without using god or the bible and he has yet to do so. And you, you can just stay out of this. I'm done with this anyway. I've always liked a great quote I heard many years ago. "Do not argue with stupid people, because they will pull you down to their level and beat you with experience". Thus, to avoid getting pulled down to such an incredibly stupid level that he's on, I'm done.
I could say the exact same thing about you, you know.
But what is 'scientific' data? Why must I try to explain the world without using God's word? Why do you insist on removing the supernatural, when your own beliefs of Evolution require such supernatural occurrences as abiogenesis (Life from purely non-life materials)? It has never been observed or 'repeated' in any way; it goes against the *scientific* law of biogenesis (life only comes from life).
Thanks Risei no Koe, I am a boy.
I am certain this battle is not merely about who is right or wrong, but that it is a spiritual battle. The Devil and his demons are furiously resisting the Lord our God and His army of angels, in an attempt to get as many of us into hell as possible. The Devil hates us; we are created in God's image, and he is futilely attempting to gain ground by hardening our hearts towards God's ways. He knows he cannot win, and will be defeated, so he is trying to take as many of us down with him as possible.
The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
Matthew 13:41-43 NKJV
http://bible.com/114/mat.13.41-43.NKJV
I've watched this debate long enough, and sadly I feel like I must jump in now. Sublime, the general atheist community rather disapproves of using God's word to explain the world because to them, it's similar to someone who believes in Santa trying to persuade other people to believe in Santa because 'Santa said so'. Needless to say, it is not very convincing, and after a while, annoying. Also, evolution has nothing to with abiogenesis; evolution merely explains why life has progressed the way it has, not how it started. Simply put, it translates to 'Those with the means to survive, do. Those who don't, die out.' It is not anything supernatural.
Stark, u don't just argue for a week about something and then say " you know what? I'm not gonna argue!" I think both sides have made their points very clear, and its time to close this issue for this post.
If anyone's tired of this argument, they can just leave and not comment.
I agree with gerard on what he refers to as evolution (micro-evolution, changes in the kind of animal, eg chihuauas vs dalmations), but I was referring to the other 5 kinds of evolution, which are not observable, testable or repeatable.
https://youtu.be/fQ_h-S7IuaM
I don't quite get yourpoint about Santa; I do not want to be confined by the atheist's thinking; if I don't use God's word to prove my point, I cannot logically explain how the universe originated, so the only other answer would be evolution.
https://youtu.be/WfdcQR0ux_M
The foundations of my beliefs is that there is a God, He created our universe, and He recorded its history in the Bible. Atheists are fundamentally against God; they simply refuse to accept that He will judge them in time, so they come up with ridiculously unscientific theories such as the Big Bang in an attempt to explain how the universe originated without God.
If I said to them, "explain how life arose from non-life, while still obeying natural laws such as biogenesis," they could not answer me. The only other answer would be that there is an intelligent designer (God), and they refuse to acknowledge that.
I citizized you for being a hypocrite, which means that you are also contradicting yourself :) il let u have the final comment then be done with this argument
In an atheist's world, there's no-one there to tell you right from wrong. You have to think it out yourself. Morality is cultivated; not a set of given rules that are almost punishing for you to follow. Isn't it rather disappointing that a higher deity needs to personally inform you NOT to murder someone in order for you not to kill them?
For me, it's just intuition....I've never had the desire to hurt someone just because I haven't. I don't know, I honestly don't think us humans are that different, everyone must have at least a similar reason not to kill people.
reading through this i can see 3 positions in the argument. One of which being people of a religious mindset that refuse to even consider anything else. Second, people of an atheist mindset that refuse to consider anything else. Third, being people of unspecified (unless i missed it) mindset that tried and failed horribly to keep the argument civil. On Noah's flood there has been areas with evidence of previous exposure to extreme amounts of water with no source of an amount of that would explain it. There is an area of Antarctica that shows evidence of a large portion of it broke off which would theoretically cause a global flood if our estimation of the earth's sea levels at the time were close to correct. About having morals people with morals live longer because people with morals gravitate towards people with morals and large groups of people survive longer than on their own.
@morgan, I thought i was the only one who thought about time like that. Ive always beleived time started when Adam and Eve fell. But the 7 days God took to make the earth could have been millions of years to us in the way we perceive time.
But if the six days involved evolution, there are many discrepancies. Birds came before land animals (dinosaurs), the Earth was originally water and not molten rock, the Earth appeared before the stars and planets, so did light. Plants lived before the sun! Insects came after birds and whales.
Evolution involves death and natural selection, so what of this verse: Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Genesis 1:31 NKJV
http://bible.com/114/gen.1.31.NKJV
How could death be very good?
The entire chapter makes no sense if its days were referring to long periods of time. I believe there were six literal days in which God created the universe, then he rested on the seventh.
Well if you research, the hebrew word used was "yom." Translated? It can mean either 1 day or a period of time. I believe its the period of time. God did not create time. Man did. Even in the bible it says 1000 years to man is 1 day in the eyes of God.
dear god stark you have gotten your point across. If you would look in my earlier comments, I AGREE. I KNOW THE EARTH IS NOT ONLY 6000 YEARS OLD. Seriously just stop. Would you like me to repeat myself so that I can get through to you that even if I am a christian and creationist, i still believe the earth is more than 6000 years old.
Yom, in the original hebrew context used in Genesis 1, refers to literal 24 hour days because it is always accompanied by a number (eg the first day).
Slightly slow, 6min summary: https://youtu.be/G8eTBNA20jU
So there you go guys. Please.stop assuming that every creationist is stupid becase I assure you, we aren't.
It's still creationism. Just old earth creationism. I do not believe we evolved.
Complete Creation series: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL11166601CA0FB279
However, there is a God, and he has given us a history of our world in the form of the Holy Bible.
There will come a time when you die that you will be held accountable for your sins. All people have sinned and deserve to go to hell. However, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16 NKJV). Jesus died on the Cross to save You. He loves you! All you need to do is confess your sins to Him and He will forgive you.
Romans 8:38-39 NKJV
http://bible.com/114/rom.8.38-39.NKJV
Jesus Loves You.
And other *scientists* Do believe in young-earth creation. https://youtu.be/Gsrd3y0YooI
Science does, indeed, thrive on facts. However, every "fact" starts off as a theory. For instance, Galileo had a theory that the earth revolved around the sun, not vice-versa (which has obviously been proven true.) Newton had some very interesting theories on the way objects interact with each other-- which have since become the Laws of Physics! Some theories are obviously false-- like the "miasma" theory of disease spread, popular in the Renaissance era-- and some are just plain silly, like the prevailing idea in the Medieval Age that maggots came from rotten meat! But people tend to forget that some theories cannot be proven nor disproven, such as the respective theories of evolution and creation. To quote Stark, "...science thrives on solid facts that are tested and repeatable at any time." Unfortunately, we can have no conclusive evidence for either of these prevailing theories, because we can neither travel
And to the guest: precisely! Very good insight and advice.
Fossils can form rapidly. https://youtu.be/cfffRl4RT4s#t=63m00s
Radiocarbon dating methods don't work. https://youtu.be/bGB-PfFSV2w
A frozen World War Two fighter was found under 263 feet of ice in Greenland. The ice formed in just 48 years. https://youtu.be/ue8rVSmrmZ0
To people who are interested, check out Kent Hovind's series, The Creation Seminar: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6-cVj-ZRivqKeqAklhYfFFmmAdvwcnCT
Quick, to the point explanation (3min):
https://youtu.be/VFwKnjrlSCE
And, sure thing Risei no Koe!
And to stark and all others: I respect all of your beliefs and don't want you to feel invaded/attacked, I just want people to see both sides of the argument and for them to research it themselves and find out the truth. God bless.
Also, carbon-14 dating shouldn't get ages over 100,000 years At Most, as there would be absolutely zero Carbon-14 left in the specimen. https://youtu.be/3wMV8Hw99yg
Oil can be made in 20 minutes in the lab. It can be made by massive amounts of pressure, such as those present during Noah's Flood. It does not take millions of years to form oil. https://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=51 "Argonne National Laboratories has reported on research proving that under natural conditions coal may be formed in only 36 weeks."
Genesis 7:19-22 NKJV
http://bible.com/114/gen.7.19-22.NKJV
It was not a local Flood, it killed *all* living things on the Earth.
Kent Hovind's theory on how the Flood happened:
https://youtu.be/cfffRl4RT4s
That would be 'true' if evolution were 'true'.
But there was a designer, a loving God who cannot lie. He has given us His written word, the Bible, as an ultimate source of truth in this world He created. I can believe that all things written in the Bible are true because He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
You do have a purpose in this world. He loves you so much that He gave His only Son as a sacrifice for you. He has a plan for you and you need to let Christ enter your life.
If you knew even half of everything (which you don't), is it possible for God to exist in the other half you don't know of? Yes it is.
Please, do not sink to those levels.
And at sublimegamer: you have made some very interesting points. Kudos.
But what is 'scientific' data? Why must I try to explain the world without using God's word? Why do you insist on removing the supernatural, when your own beliefs of Evolution require such supernatural occurrences as abiogenesis (Life from purely non-life materials)? It has never been observed or 'repeated' in any way; it goes against the *scientific* law of biogenesis (life only comes from life).
Thanks Risei no Koe, I am a boy.
Matthew 13:41-43 NKJV
http://bible.com/114/mat.13.41-43.NKJV
I agree with gerard on what he refers to as evolution (micro-evolution, changes in the kind of animal, eg chihuauas vs dalmations), but I was referring to the other 5 kinds of evolution, which are not observable, testable or repeatable.
https://youtu.be/fQ_h-S7IuaM
I don't quite get yourpoint about Santa; I do not want to be confined by the atheist's thinking; if I don't use God's word to prove my point, I cannot logically explain how the universe originated, so the only other answer would be evolution.
https://youtu.be/WfdcQR0ux_M
The foundations of my beliefs is that there is a God, He created our universe, and He recorded its history in the Bible. Atheists are fundamentally against God; they simply refuse to accept that He will judge them in time, so they come up with ridiculously unscientific theories such as the Big Bang in an attempt to explain how the universe originated without God.
Evolution involves death and natural selection, so what of this verse: Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Genesis 1:31 NKJV
http://bible.com/114/gen.1.31.NKJV
How could death be very good?
The entire chapter makes no sense if its days were referring to long periods of time. I believe there were six literal days in which God created the universe, then he rested on the seventh.
Slightly slow, 6min summary: https://youtu.be/G8eTBNA20jU