-
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.
I am not saying we should say something or believe something to get unbelievers or even evolutionists to like us. Some secular science is bad as in bad input= bad output, some science is good and honest, and what we find in nature should always coincide with what the Bible says because the bible says that's what should happen. DOH! Science done right should and has led people to God of bible.
i agree with that completely.
i hope i didn't come across as attacking you. i just think it's important to realize that there is "bad science" floating around in creationist arguments - and i'm a creationist too. i hate to see some well-meaning Christian's argument justifiably ripped to shreds in a secular setting. "when one member suffers, the whole body suffers" you know.
i hope i didn't come across as attacking you. i just think it's important to realize that there is "bad science" floating around in creationist arguments - and i'm a creationist too. i hate to see some well-meaning Christian's argument justifiably ripped to shreds in a secular setting. "when one member suffers, the whole body suffers" you know.
It has just as much if not more biblical merit then young earth, you just refuse to accept the biblical arguments and evidences old-earthers put forward without consideration IMO. Do you have stock in the Creation Museum or something? Ken Ham has a lot to lose if YECism is wrong. And to say that OEC weakens Christianity is only opinion, unless you back it up with proof. Do you have any proof, I'd like to see it.
T
I don't have stock in the Creation Museum, that's silly. I can support something without being involved in it. I have considered other beliefs concerning creation and have found them wanting. Also, OEC has been debunked by biblical creationists - just check out the Creation Ministries International and Answers In Genesis websites.
Yes it does, because if the earth is older then 6000-10,000 years, as most of the evidences suggest and in which the bible really doesn't address directly, then Christians are deceived and giving faulty exegesis of the bible to the world. If true and honest science, the study of nature (what God created) doesn't confirm what the bible says (God says it should) then we have our interpretation wrong. If our interpretation is wrong, then we'll lead others done a path of error. If the earth is really 6000 years old, then the evidences should overwhelming support that claim.
actually it's looking more and more like "genetic mosaicism" or "chimerism" is more than just plausible -- our bodies contain a wide variety of different genomes, even matching genetic profiles of people we aren't related to. the genome one gets from a tissue sample isn't guaranteed to match the genome found from swabbing the same persons mouth. a paper published last November in Science by a group that was able to sequence individual DNA strands for the first time details some pretty surprising findings that don't agree with "conventional genetics." before this study, all genetic ID had been done by "averaging" - so it was thought that the amount of genetic variation in a single human was small and completely due to errors in resequencing, but this view is challenged by the new findings.
here's a link to a NY Times article about it - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/science/dna-double-take.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
don't let the folks in the conspiracy section of the forum know; they're darn sure that nothing like this is ever allowed to be published, let alone in such a major journal.
i'm posting it because you may not have heard, not because i'm citing it as proof or disproof of anything. it raises a lot of interesting questions, and gives credence to some alternate views of why and how quickly physical variations within species can develop.
Last edited:
If something is biased because it disagrees with you, then how can you possibly find an unbiased source?
I wouldn't say that the vast majority of "people" hold to evolutionary theory. According to Pew polls in 2009, only 54% of the American public believed in evolution, and that's only if you factor in the 22% of Americans that believe God guided it. The vast majority of scientists certainly believe evolution is true, and they are the ones that write the vast majority of peer-reviewed literature on the subject. That's why any non-religious text is going to be biased towards evolution.
The reason that bible history is spoken of as myth is due to methodological naturalism. We assume that, if it isn't known to happen in the present, it probably didn't happen in the past. And by "we", I mean you and I -- you don't take the myths of any other religion seriously, only your own. If you hear about a supernatural event in another culture's history, you are just as likely as I am to immediately assume that it came from the imagination of that culture. Should Wikipedia discuss the Greek myths as if they were probably true, but we're simply lacking the evidence?
You have to get your information with as little bias as possible if you want it to be accurate. Just because the information isn't biased in your favor doesn't mean it's biased against it.
I wouldn't say that the vast majority of "people" hold to evolutionary theory. According to Pew polls in 2009, only 54% of the American public believed in evolution, and that's only if you factor in the 22% of Americans that believe God guided it. The vast majority of scientists certainly believe evolution is true, and they are the ones that write the vast majority of peer-reviewed literature on the subject. That's why any non-religious text is going to be biased towards evolution.
The reason that bible history is spoken of as myth is due to methodological naturalism. We assume that, if it isn't known to happen in the present, it probably didn't happen in the past. And by "we", I mean you and I -- you don't take the myths of any other religion seriously, only your own. If you hear about a supernatural event in another culture's history, you are just as likely as I am to immediately assume that it came from the imagination of that culture. Should Wikipedia discuss the Greek myths as if they were probably true, but we're simply lacking the evidence?
You have to get your information with as little bias as possible if you want it to be accurate. Just because the information isn't biased in your favor doesn't mean it's biased against it.
OEC actually strengthens Christianity as a whole and opens the door to the followers of secular science, as it agrees with an ancient earth....NOT in evolution...but an ancient earth. If non-Christians see that Christianity agrees with the prominent world view on the age of earth, then they are more likely to investigate its claims for the non-physical realm, as well.
If the earth looks old, it is because it is!
The same science that put a man on the moon also tells us that the Universe is billions of years old.
Both K.H's...i.e. Ken Ham & Kent Hovind are buffoons in my book...
Both K.H.'s are the ones that the media likes to interview whenever the question comes up on what Christianity has to say regarding the age of the earth....its akin to the media always interviewing the good 'ol boy in the single wide trailer as to getting the scoop on the tornado that just swept through the area...
YEC's do more harm than good in recruiting an educated populous.
YEC missionaries can recruit to the faith due to the fact that the majority of third world recruits don't know an old earth from a young earth...
Christianity could take a queue from islam in that regard - as almost all Muslims that I have encountered are OEC.
T
Both K.H.'s are the ones that the media likes to interview whenever the question comes up on what Christianity has to say regarding the age of the earth....its akin to the media always interviewing the good 'ol boy in the single wide trailer as to getting the scoop on the tornado that just swept through the area...
YEC's do more harm than good in recruiting an educated populous.
YEC missionaries can recruit to the faith due to the fact that the majority of third world recruits don't know an old earth from a young earth...
Christianity could take a queue from islam in that regard - as almost all Muslims that I have encountered are OEC.
YEC's do more harm than good in recruiting an educated populous.
YEC missionaries can recruit to the faith due to the fact that the majority of third world recruits don't know an old earth from a young earth...
Christianity could take a queue from islam in that regard - as almost all Muslims that I have encountered are OEC.
E
Both K.H.'s are the ones that the media likes to interview whenever the question comes up on what Christianity has to say regarding the age of the earth....its akin to the media always interviewing the good 'ol boy in the single wide trailer as to getting the scoop on the tornado that just swept through the area...
YEC's do more harm than good in recruiting an educated populous.
YEC missionaries can recruit to the faith due to the fact that the majority of third world recruits don't know an old earth from a young earth...
Christianity could take a queue from islam in that regard - as almost all Muslims that I have encountered are OEC.
YEC's do more harm than good in recruiting an educated populous.
YEC missionaries can recruit to the faith due to the fact that the majority of third world recruits don't know an old earth from a young earth...
Christianity could take a queue from islam in that regard - as almost all Muslims that I have encountered are OEC.
wow. now there is alot of propoganda in these words.. why would you want to do this?