-
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.
M
Seriously though, I would love to see it come to a point where Evolutionists admit to the holes and problems in their theories, and Creationists understand that their standpoint is really hard for non-Christians to swallow.
The thing is, none of us were there when it happened and it can't be copied now... so the debate is never going to end. But once everyone admits that they don't know, then maybe we could begin to end the battle between religion and science (because the two are NOT mutually exclusive...)
The thing is, none of us were there when it happened and it can't be copied now... so the debate is never going to end. But once everyone admits that they don't know, then maybe we could begin to end the battle between religion and science (because the two are NOT mutually exclusive...)
K
Lol, like my pastor says, he believes there was a big bang when God created the earth. Imagine Him just saying words and the earth and everything forming out of nothing. I'm pretty sure the earth didn't just pop into being like those little thought bubbles. ^^ But on a more serious term, I think it just all boils down to faith. And like MusicalMe says, there's a lot of holes in evolution. I watched the movie "Expelled", and at one point there was an evolutionist saying that there were bacteria on the backs of cells or something that was the origin of how the earth began (can't remember everything too well, sorry), and Ben Stiller was asking where the bacteria came from, and the evolutionist was literally just repeating what he said about the bacteria and had no clue what to say.
Seriously, I'd say to anyone worried about science and Creationism vs scientific models for the origins of the universe, don't worry about it. You'll make you're head hurt. God made the world; whether it took billions of years or seven days shouldn't impact how we live in the here and now. When we meet God, he's not going to ask us "DID YOU BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM OR EVOLUTION!?", he's going to ask us whether we lived our lives with faith and compassion.
W
Why couldn't God create the thingy that started the Big Bang? I mean, he MUST have a sense of humor, making us... 
so why not start the world with a boooooom!? (to make the universe), thubking we'd need something to use our brains at figuring out, and then, after that I wonder if he just said/ thought something along the lines of "now I'll make this little thingy where I can put there strange and marvelous creatures I'm gonna make! I can't wait fot rhem to look into the night sky and see all the stars I made just for their pleasure!"
yeah, I have a vivid imagination. can't help it
so why not start the world with a boooooom!? (to make the universe), thubking we'd need something to use our brains at figuring out, and then, after that I wonder if he just said/ thought something along the lines of "now I'll make this little thingy where I can put there strange and marvelous creatures I'm gonna make! I can't wait fot rhem to look into the night sky and see all the stars I made just for their pleasure!"
yeah, I have a vivid imagination. can't help it
According to your logic, it should be accurate. Too bad the world we live in isn't the world discribed in the bible, eh?
What you basicly say, is that every single piece of science is wrong. That "science" is just a way to sound more literate while repudiating god.
Still you chat on a piece of equipment that is 100% pure science. And it works. It works pretty well for pure fraud, don't you think?
Man travelled to the moon. I don't think they used scripture from the bible to make the Apollo 11. I think they used "fraud science".
The bible says that earth is the center of the universe and that the sun is revolving around it. Both was proven wrong. The bible says that space is full of water ("the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament;"). I am not sure if satellites would work in water.
Every single piece of evidence that was ever discovered leads to the conclusion that earth is way older than 6000 years. Of cause, much of that evidence is flawed and not 100% accurate. But isn't it funny how every single piece of evidence shows the same age? Shouldn't there be any evidence that the earth is in fact 6000 years old (except of the bible)?
It's like a man is accused of murder. 100 people saw him do it. He left fingerprints and genetic evidence. What you do is saying: "Eh, those 100 people are clearly bribed, his fingerprints are on the knive because of a rare coincident involving an elephant and a one legged chicken and the dna was put there by people trying to frame him."
This scenario is possible. But not very likely.
Ever heard of Occams Razor? If there are two possibilities to explain something, always choose the simpler one.
I still think that god created the universe. But he didn't do it like it was said in the bible. That is just an illustration.
What you basicly say, is that every single piece of science is wrong. That "science" is just a way to sound more literate while repudiating god.
Still you chat on a piece of equipment that is 100% pure science. And it works. It works pretty well for pure fraud, don't you think?
Man travelled to the moon. I don't think they used scripture from the bible to make the Apollo 11. I think they used "fraud science".
The bible says that earth is the center of the universe and that the sun is revolving around it. Both was proven wrong. The bible says that space is full of water ("the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament;"). I am not sure if satellites would work in water.
Every single piece of evidence that was ever discovered leads to the conclusion that earth is way older than 6000 years. Of cause, much of that evidence is flawed and not 100% accurate. But isn't it funny how every single piece of evidence shows the same age? Shouldn't there be any evidence that the earth is in fact 6000 years old (except of the bible)?
It's like a man is accused of murder. 100 people saw him do it. He left fingerprints and genetic evidence. What you do is saying: "Eh, those 100 people are clearly bribed, his fingerprints are on the knive because of a rare coincident involving an elephant and a one legged chicken and the dna was put there by people trying to frame him."
This scenario is possible. But not very likely.
Ever heard of Occams Razor? If there are two possibilities to explain something, always choose the simpler one.
I still think that god created the universe. But he didn't do it like it was said in the bible. That is just an illustration.
M
You are incredibly missinformed, above.
The world we live is exactly the world discribed in the bible.
Eh no, that was not what he basicly said.
Not true at all! Scientists who first came up with the idea of millions of years did so without even looking at the evidence. Their starting point was "there is no God" and that is what leads to the conclusion that the earth is way older than 6000 years. Because 6000 years is way too short for a purely naturalistic explanation.
I can't believe you even said this. Because again you couldn't be more wrong. There are dozens of ways to measure the age of the earth, or at least give a maximum possible age. And guess what: every single piece of evidence shows a different age. Only a very small amount of them gives ages in the order of millions of years. And these methods are based on questionnable presuppositions. But since the earth MUST be millions of years old, the other measurements must be wrong. That's the way secular scientists draw their conclusions and present it as fact.
Yes, there should be. And it's everywhere.
This may suprise you, but I really love science. But there is no such thing as "neutral" science. Science has its limits too, especially when dealing with things that happened a long time ago. We can't go back to see for ourselves, the only things we can study are here in the present. The conlusions that people draw form the evidence is determined by their presuppositions. But christians don't have to start with the idea that there is no God. We know better. The bible gives the impression that the earth is about 6000 years old and that determines the way creationists look at the evidence. And I can tell you this: the evidence fits much better in a creationist view, than in an evolutionistic view.
The world we live is exactly the world discribed in the bible.
Eh no, that was not what he basicly said.
Not true at all! Scientists who first came up with the idea of millions of years did so without even looking at the evidence. Their starting point was "there is no God" and that is what leads to the conclusion that the earth is way older than 6000 years. Because 6000 years is way too short for a purely naturalistic explanation.
I can't believe you even said this. Because again you couldn't be more wrong. There are dozens of ways to measure the age of the earth, or at least give a maximum possible age. And guess what: every single piece of evidence shows a different age. Only a very small amount of them gives ages in the order of millions of years. And these methods are based on questionnable presuppositions. But since the earth MUST be millions of years old, the other measurements must be wrong. That's the way secular scientists draw their conclusions and present it as fact.
Yes, there should be. And it's everywhere.
This may suprise you, but I really love science. But there is no such thing as "neutral" science. Science has its limits too, especially when dealing with things that happened a long time ago. We can't go back to see for ourselves, the only things we can study are here in the present. The conlusions that people draw form the evidence is determined by their presuppositions. But christians don't have to start with the idea that there is no God. We know better. The bible gives the impression that the earth is about 6000 years old and that determines the way creationists look at the evidence. And I can tell you this: the evidence fits much better in a creationist view, than in an evolutionistic view.
So you believe outer space is full of water?
Markus,
the starting point of science was never to prove the nonexistance of god. Galileo Galilei was a man of great faith who was condemned by the chruch because he could prove that the world revolves around the sun, not vice versa. Newton also saw himself as a man of god who wanted to add to his glory by explaining the world. They were no atheists making up stuff. Einstein, who invented the theory of relativity also believed in god. And still today a lot of leading scientists are believers.
What I was trying to say is the following: You creationists never came up with any real evidence. All you do is take evidence that show the opposit of what you believe and then try to find a flaw in it. Okay, maybe radiometric age dating is only accurate until 6000 years ago and then it doesn't work anymore because of magic as you suggest. Maybe the C14 dating method is only accurate until 6000 years ago and then doesn't work anymore because the c14 concentration was different back then (due to no reason whatsoever). Maybe we never find a dinosaur fossil in the same layer of sediment then a human due to simple chance. Maybe the fossils deeper down only look less evolved then the ones nearer to the top because an evil atheist agency buried them that way. Maybe. Maybe there never was an ice age 20 thousand years ago and all the animals we find buried in the ice are just fake. Maybe all the layers of ice on the northpole were added later on by Satan. That's possible, why not. And the Neanderthal man? Another intelligent ape like species, not directly related to the homo sapiens, who were clothing themselfes, using weapons and buried their dead? I am not saying that this is 100% bulletproof evidence. But non of that says: "Hey, the world is only 6000 years old".
Show me ONE SINGLE piece of evidence that the world is only 6000 years old. There are non.
And I mean verifiable evidence, not "the bible says so".
Markus,
the starting point of science was never to prove the nonexistance of god. Galileo Galilei was a man of great faith who was condemned by the chruch because he could prove that the world revolves around the sun, not vice versa. Newton also saw himself as a man of god who wanted to add to his glory by explaining the world. They were no atheists making up stuff. Einstein, who invented the theory of relativity also believed in god. And still today a lot of leading scientists are believers.
What I was trying to say is the following: You creationists never came up with any real evidence. All you do is take evidence that show the opposit of what you believe and then try to find a flaw in it. Okay, maybe radiometric age dating is only accurate until 6000 years ago and then it doesn't work anymore because of magic as you suggest. Maybe the C14 dating method is only accurate until 6000 years ago and then doesn't work anymore because the c14 concentration was different back then (due to no reason whatsoever). Maybe we never find a dinosaur fossil in the same layer of sediment then a human due to simple chance. Maybe the fossils deeper down only look less evolved then the ones nearer to the top because an evil atheist agency buried them that way. Maybe. Maybe there never was an ice age 20 thousand years ago and all the animals we find buried in the ice are just fake. Maybe all the layers of ice on the northpole were added later on by Satan. That's possible, why not. And the Neanderthal man? Another intelligent ape like species, not directly related to the homo sapiens, who were clothing themselfes, using weapons and buried their dead? I am not saying that this is 100% bulletproof evidence. But non of that says: "Hey, the world is only 6000 years old".
Show me ONE SINGLE piece of evidence that the world is only 6000 years old. There are non.
And I mean verifiable evidence, not "the bible says so".
Last edited:
Well, I guess it all boils down to this:
Should we believe in God, who claims that He created the earth and everything in it, in 6 days? Or should we believe in man who says that the earth came into being in a period of billions of years?
Ah yes! God was just being figurative when He said he created the earth in 6 days. Six days could perhaps be thousands or millions of years.
I guess we should work for 6 thousand or 6 million years before we take a rest for 7 thousand/million years....Maybe Adam lived to be 900+ million years. Maybe Christ didn't literally rise from the dead. It was just a figurative resurrection...Or maybe He died a figurative death.
But those people back in those days wouldn't be able to understand the concept of millions/billions of years. Would they? That's perhaps why God used the figurative 6 days.....I guess God didn't think that one day we'd be reading the Bible.
Why should we believe in God about this when we can instead believe in the man-made theories? We'll just put our blind faith on our instruments that are somehow capable of accounting for the pre-global flood state of the earth...never mind that they have a hard time getting the observable weather right today.
Should we believe in God, who claims that He created the earth and everything in it, in 6 days? Or should we believe in man who says that the earth came into being in a period of billions of years?
Ah yes! God was just being figurative when He said he created the earth in 6 days. Six days could perhaps be thousands or millions of years.
I guess we should work for 6 thousand or 6 million years before we take a rest for 7 thousand/million years....Maybe Adam lived to be 900+ million years. Maybe Christ didn't literally rise from the dead. It was just a figurative resurrection...Or maybe He died a figurative death.
But those people back in those days wouldn't be able to understand the concept of millions/billions of years. Would they? That's perhaps why God used the figurative 6 days.....I guess God didn't think that one day we'd be reading the Bible.
Why should we believe in God about this when we can instead believe in the man-made theories? We'll just put our blind faith on our instruments that are somehow capable of accounting for the pre-global flood state of the earth...never mind that they have a hard time getting the observable weather right today.
You do not believe in God. You believe in the bible. That's a difference. You only have one single source for your theory, I have thousands of independent sources. And you did not speak about one single thing I mentioned. So when according to you had been the ice ages? They lasted for 20.000 years, very hard to press 20.000 years of ice age into 6000 years of excistence, isn't it?
Just answer that one question, okay?
Just answer that one question, okay?