-
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.
You do realize that existence does point to a beginning. Prior to 13.7 billion years ago, according to modern science, there was nothing. Some scientists believe that there may have been a universe prior to this one, but that universe would be so unique it would not be comparable to this one. The laws of physics as they exist and how everything interacts BEGAN 13.7 billion years ago. If you do not believe in a precursory universe, which most scientists and physicists do not, then you have to admit that the universe was created. Now, how that creation came about is debated. We believe God did it. I believe God did it through the creation of all things, including evolution, science, mathematics, etc. (Because as the Creator, He must have created everything and defined all things). As Christians, we believe that God the Father created everything. Some say 6 days, some say 13.7 billion years, but in the end, we believe it was by the hand of God.
B
BradC
Guest
Every single argument and attempt to refute creationism stems from unbelief concerning the claim of God, through the testimony of what has been written by men in the scriptures for man. Some of you get so entangled with evolution and its principle claims and the use of irrelevant things, which only become an obstruction to the truth we have been given. We walk in the light of truth and owe no man an explanation for the light we walk in. What we do is give a defense as to what we believe and we are to be ready with that defense to give a reason when asked of the hope that is in us through Christ. We are not instructed to be involved with those arguments because they profit nothing. Isn't it sufficient to confess the word of truth with our tongue that agrees and confirms the testimony of scripture that claims this in (Col 1:16,17)...
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
This is truth, we know it and have the witness of the Spirit within and have no need to argue the truth of it. Instead we point those in unbelief to Christ who is before all things (creation) and by him all things (of creation) consist in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible. We hold fast to the truth and hope that others who grope in darkness will see the light of truth and believe.
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
This is truth, we know it and have the witness of the Spirit within and have no need to argue the truth of it. Instead we point those in unbelief to Christ who is before all things (creation) and by him all things (of creation) consist in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible. We hold fast to the truth and hope that others who grope in darkness will see the light of truth and believe.
I didn't appreciate Nye intensely staring at Ham when Ham was responding to questions whereas Ham stepped back from his podium to give Nye 'space' when it was Nye's turn to respond. It nerved me but my wife told me to chill.
S
st_sebastian
Guest
That's not really the case. There is a wall of plasma beyond which we cannot see and likely can never see; this is the background radiation. This does not mean that there's nothing beyond it and it certainly doesn't mean that there's nothing. Some modern theories (e.g. eternal or chaotic inflation) insist that there were and are things beyond that plasma.
While some scientists may go overboard and say there was nothing "before," you have to realize that in modern science "before" doesn't even make sense in most theories. Time is a local phenomenon; if you're outside of the local universe, time doesn't make sense, and there is no "before."
That's not really true. Again, with the eternal or chaotic inflationary model, there are a number of very similar universes out there and ours could have budded off from the edge of one very much like it.
I do not know where you are getting your summations of modern cosmology from, but your source is pretending that there is only one competing hypothesis. That is by no means the case. I would check another source, because you're being misled.
B
BradC
Guest
Concerning our faith there is always a fight to be made and it is a good (kalos) fight. The good fight is excellent, handsome, beautiful, suitable and surpassing ETC ETC. It is sound fight that can not be defeated or destroyed of turned away. It is a good fight that wins Christ and is of the Spirit and not the flesh. When we contend for this good fight of faith we do so as a combatant with intensity. We do it with persuasion and with the fruit of that persuasion to convince others to turn from their own ways and unto the way of the cross by faith without doubt or skepticism.
If it's true that everything we observe was originally spoken into existence , how can you expect a 'science' that only allows for observable evidence to finally come to the ultimate origin of all things? Even if it is not true, the infinite questioning of an where did z-y-x-w-∞ is unavoidable and ultimately unanswerable. This is Nye's faulty hope fallacy.
J
jimmydiggs
Guest
Yes, there are other views, but they're not worth defending.
I wouldn't defend Jehovah Witnesses as Christian while I debate an atheist.
I have not watched this debate so i'm not sure what argument Ken made regarding a young earth, but I have asked people if they saw a newly created Adam would they see an infant or a full grown adult? No one I have talked to has said an infant. With that in mind, why would it be so difficult to argue that a newly created Earth would appear with a "built in" old age appearance?
I didnt say God didn't create the earth or life. But i dont think the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old either.
S
st_sebastian
Guest
I don't think it would be difficult, but it would be odd.
An old earth would have a great number of dead things on it, but death hadn't entered the world. It would be as if God simulated the effects of sin where it hadn't been. Would some of the skeletons also be diseased? Would some of the skeletons be human? Would there have been evidence that they were murdered (crushed skulls, etc.)?
It seems like he would have simulated an old creation in his head, then stopped it in his head, then created it. At that point, everything has lived as it would have if the earth were old. It just seems strange.
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
Your'e missing the point. Adam existed pre AND post fall. I'm talking about how the age of the Earth is calculated to be 4 billion or is it 6 billion this week.... NONE of the methods are reliable because we don't know how long Adam existed pre fall, and what the Earth looked like relative to those calculated methods both pre-and immediate post fall.
S
st_sebastian
Guest
I don't understand your reply. You ask if it would be difficult to argue that God made an old looking earth. I say that an old looking earth contains a lot of death and sin. This seems very odd, for God to create a world that looks very sinful, when it is actually not. You say you're talking about:
But I'm responding to:
To me, it seemed like a genuine question. I may have misunderstood and you weren't asking a genuine question.