-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P
Jack as you can see from post #2 it was not i who mentioned 6000 years but rather the above poster John S and they are clearly very confused about scripture. I was asking the question as to why they thought that an earth younger than eons old was "ignorant nonsense". A question to which they never gave an answer.
i maintain however that the bible does not give us verbatim a definitive age of the earth from creation to the present however as I understand the evidence exhibited in nature, it does not automatically prescribe that the earth is an "old earth" either. We simply cannot know, it is immeasurable because we cannot test it. Period. The one thing that we do know is that there is no evidence to support an earth where evolution from one genus to another exists ( this is clearly what those in the evolutionary camp mean when they define evolution) and attempt to use radiometric dating techniques to age the earth have been consistently shown to be wildly inconsistent and at odds with observable data, something you are bound to agree with, are you not?
as for the word of God being " inerrant". I fully stand behind this statement, as every serious theological scholar in the world, recognises that doctrinally and in the essential facts, including the accounts of creation, miracles, both old and new testament, and of course the resurrection of Christ from the dead, there is no deviation amongst the texts that would be considered significant in any way as to distort the text and thus show it up as being flawed or misinterpreted, therefore errant or untrustworthy. I believe that in making the statements and asking the questions that you have, you have deliberately tried to discredit he Word of God by suggesting that its untrustworthy. A very dangerous and foolish thing to do Jack.
we ALL, need to humble ourselves before God, take step back from our entrenched positions and trusting the Word of God. It is much more important that we glorify The Lord God, than that we try to look good in our own ignorance.
i maintain however that the bible does not give us verbatim a definitive age of the earth from creation to the present however as I understand the evidence exhibited in nature, it does not automatically prescribe that the earth is an "old earth" either. We simply cannot know, it is immeasurable because we cannot test it. Period. The one thing that we do know is that there is no evidence to support an earth where evolution from one genus to another exists ( this is clearly what those in the evolutionary camp mean when they define evolution) and attempt to use radiometric dating techniques to age the earth have been consistently shown to be wildly inconsistent and at odds with observable data, something you are bound to agree with, are you not?
as for the word of God being " inerrant". I fully stand behind this statement, as every serious theological scholar in the world, recognises that doctrinally and in the essential facts, including the accounts of creation, miracles, both old and new testament, and of course the resurrection of Christ from the dead, there is no deviation amongst the texts that would be considered significant in any way as to distort the text and thus show it up as being flawed or misinterpreted, therefore errant or untrustworthy. I believe that in making the statements and asking the questions that you have, you have deliberately tried to discredit he Word of God by suggesting that its untrustworthy. A very dangerous and foolish thing to do Jack.
we ALL, need to humble ourselves before God, take step back from our entrenched positions and trusting the Word of God. It is much more important that we glorify The Lord God, than that we try to look good in our own ignorance.
That's an understatement. In fact, science doesn't have the first clue how life on earth came to exist.
Science believes we evolved based on evidence which is subject to honest misinterpretation, dishonest misrepresentation, etc. Therefore, science does not "know" that we evolved.
The theory of abiogenesis is one of evolution.
By supporting abiogenesis, you are saying that life "popped up out of nowhere."
There most certainly is. It's called biogenesis.
As I said above, abiogenesis is evolution and your own statement here defines it that way...a gradual process of change (from nonliving to living.) Think Percepi. Why do scientists currently believe abiogenesis is possible? Why is a theory of abiogenesis necessary to explain life?
What you are purporting is completely untrue. There is no "scientific evidence" backing up the idea that chemicals spontaneously formed life on our planet. This notion is pure atheism and has nothing to do with science. In fact, science disproves abiogenesis through the law of biogenesis. Science knows life only comes from life. Therefore, science supports what the Bible teaches.
You're right, but what science can actually observe, what science actually can prove agrees more with what I believe than with what you believe. Don't simply believe anything you're told. Think.
I understand that even people with Phd's can be influenced by personal prejudice and create ideas which are not supported by anything other than their own imagnations. Thanks, but I'll pass on the offer.
Try honestly attacking what you believe. You'll find it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Science believes we evolved based on evidence which is subject to honest misinterpretation, dishonest misrepresentation, etc. Therefore, science does not "know" that we evolved.
The theory of abiogenesis is one of evolution.
By supporting abiogenesis, you are saying that life "popped up out of nowhere."
There most certainly is. It's called biogenesis.
As I said above, abiogenesis is evolution and your own statement here defines it that way...a gradual process of change (from nonliving to living.) Think Percepi. Why do scientists currently believe abiogenesis is possible? Why is a theory of abiogenesis necessary to explain life?
What you are purporting is completely untrue. There is no "scientific evidence" backing up the idea that chemicals spontaneously formed life on our planet. This notion is pure atheism and has nothing to do with science. In fact, science disproves abiogenesis through the law of biogenesis. Science knows life only comes from life. Therefore, science supports what the Bible teaches.
You're right, but what science can actually observe, what science actually can prove agrees more with what I believe than with what you believe. Don't simply believe anything you're told. Think.
I understand that even people with Phd's can be influenced by personal prejudice and create ideas which are not supported by anything other than their own imagnations. Thanks, but I'll pass on the offer.
Try honestly attacking what you believe. You'll find it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Numerous individuals who have posted on your thread here have indicated that the Bible does give us a definitive age of the earth, as in around 6000 years old. Specifically, the world was created on October 23, 4004 BC if you believe Bishop Ussher. His dates were printed in the KJV for several hundred years. That is where YECs get their dating from. And here they thought it was Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis.
So how old do you think the earth is? You must have some opinion. Closer to 6000 years old or closer to 3.5 billion years old? We have a rather large discrepancy here.
You indicated you are a scientist. You said you are a molecular biologist. Correct?
You don't talk like a scientist. You don't appear to know much of anything about scientific theory. Do you know anything about the criteria of falsifiability?
Are you saying that nothing can be reliably tested for age by such methods as Carbon-14 dating?
What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Do you know why it is so important that they are accurately dated?
So how old do you think the earth is? You must have some opinion. Closer to 6000 years old or closer to 3.5 billion years old? We have a rather large discrepancy here.
You indicated you are a scientist. You said you are a molecular biologist. Correct?
You don't talk like a scientist. You don't appear to know much of anything about scientific theory. Do you know anything about the criteria of falsifiability?
Are you saying that nothing can be reliably tested for age by such methods as Carbon-14 dating?
What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Do you know why it is so important that they are accurately dated?
Real old.
Actually, it's 4.54 billion years old according to the preponderance of scientific evidence and the consensus of the majority of reputable scientists. I said 3.5 billion years old in my post #784. What do I know. A billion years here or there doesn't make much difference to me.
Can you pin down your 6000 years old a little more? Do you agree with Bishop Ussher on 4004 BC? Or perhaps John Lightfoot who said it is 3298 BC?
Actually, it's 4.54 billion years old according to the preponderance of scientific evidence and the consensus of the majority of reputable scientists. I said 3.5 billion years old in my post #784. What do I know. A billion years here or there doesn't make much difference to me.
Can you pin down your 6000 years old a little more? Do you agree with Bishop Ussher on 4004 BC? Or perhaps John Lightfoot who said it is 3298 BC?
"A billion years here or there doesn't make much difference" to you, but you want to know whether I think God created the universe in 4004 or 3298 bc. Dude, instead of asking fruitless questions, ask yourself if alternative reasons are viable answers to what you believe.
All dating methods have problems, whether textual, style of writing, carbon dating, archaeological etc. The message content is far more important than whether the scrolls were written in 400 BC or 100 AD. I do hope any form of dating is not an end all for you.
Yes Jack. It's so you can remain brainwashed.
All dating methods have problems, whether textual, style of writing, carbon dating, archaeological etc. The message content is far more important than whether the scrolls were written in 400 BC or 100 AD. I do hope any form of dating is not an end all for you.
Yes Jack. It's so you can remain brainwashed.
Maybe I missed it, but did anyone share this?
YahTube: Creation Science Evangelism
It's a great series. Worth the time to watch.
YahTube: Creation Science Evangelism
It's a great series. Worth the time to watch.
P
You answered affirmatively. How old do you think Adam looked the moment God created him? You think he was an infant and God raised him, or you think God made him to be physically a mature adult?
You doubt God's ability to do the same with the earth as He did with Adam? How long have you had this limit put on God's power?
You doubt God's ability to do the same with the earth as He did with Adam? How long have you had this limit put on God's power?
P
I don't get my religion from websites, unlike you. I don't know the answer - and neither do you. You dismiss one possibilty without consideration. That exposes you as stupid and closed minded. No one has the physical proof either way. I know God answers my prayers and what He tells me is good enough for me.
You go ahead and keep getting your ignorant information from ignorant people that don't know-I don't care. Just don't come over and try to tell me you know more than I.
You go ahead and keep getting your ignorant information from ignorant people that don't know-I don't care. Just don't come over and try to tell me you know more than I.
P
Jack, please help me out, I really want to know what you would say to a non believer who approached you and asked " if christians say that sin entered the world ecause of sin and death is a result of sin, how come many scientists say that mankind came about as a result of unicellular organisms evolving into more complex organisms and then eventually into humans. Does this not mean that death was present before men and therefore sin was not the cause and therefore salvation through Christ cannot defeat sin and death"
what would you say to a non believer who says to you that they don't believe the bible because evolution has proved that Genesis is only a myth and that if its a myth how can you ask me to believe anything in the bible after all its probably a myth too.
what would you say to a non believer who says that they don't believe that the miraculous things stated in the bible are true because they clearly don't follow the " immutable laws of nature".
i really want to know how you answer these genuine questions.
what would you say to a non believer who says to you that they don't believe the bible because evolution has proved that Genesis is only a myth and that if its a myth how can you ask me to believe anything in the bible after all its probably a myth too.
what would you say to a non believer who says that they don't believe that the miraculous things stated in the bible are true because they clearly don't follow the " immutable laws of nature".
i really want to know how you answer these genuine questions.