No trust in Creation...no trust in Genesis....no trust in Scriptures...

[eternally-gratefull]

EG!
had some ups and downs. (AKA life...lol)

i have to say, when i rejoined, i looked at a thread that was (IMHO) a buncha lies.
but, there was EG, speaking truth in the midst of it.
balm, pure balm.

well it is always good to have someone else come and speak truth also. Glad your back

 

[eternally-gratefull]

aw, Tintin...thanks for that.
we're well, eagerly awaiting the birth of our first grandson in September. (huzzah!)
and you? how's school going this year?

Thats cool. My first grandson was born two weeks ago. A blessing from the Lord

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Absolutely,

At the time that I wrote this I believed that what I was writing was true. I took Geology courses in college, including Paleontology, and I had a lot invested in my belief system that what the professors had told me was true.

A turning point came in many of my arguments on this site when Psychomom told me that I should not "think so hard", but instead listen to Holy Spirit and let Him teach me as I read the Bible. I took her advice, and a whole new world of knowledge has opened up to me. I realized that I was wrong, in many things, and I was willing to admit it. Although, at that time, I would not have been able to articulate it, my problem was my starting point. I was beginning with man's word, instead of with God's word. There is nothing wrong with using our intellect and logic to reason. These are gifts from God to help us cope with the world around us. But the starting point must be with God's word, not with man. When I started with God's word, without trying to make it fit with man's word, then the Truth swept over me, just as the floods swept over the continents caused by tectonic activity 4500 years ago.

Creation scientists are just as smart as secular scientists. It is not a matter of there being more evidence for one point of view over another. It is how the evidence is interpreted. When we begin with God's word, it is clear that the Bible indicates a young earth, and the evidence supports that. This is my position today, and I refute any previous position.

You had to learn the hard way like I did I see.. It is very humbling, but also very freeing!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Is this something that can't wait until after class?

bible class is a 24/7 thing, we would never get to do this! lol

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Paul warned us about people that will come in the last days and would reject supernatural Christianity, especially literal creationism. Although these are widely diverse in structure and purpose, they all share one vital feature in common: They reject supernatural Christianity, especially literal creationism. Many liberal preachers give nominal allegiance to the teachings of Christ and the Bible, but they invariably deny the mighty power of God in special creation, as well as the great worldwide miracles of the Bible—the Flood, the dispersion, etc.

Included in Paul’s graphic description of the “perilous” characteristics of the “last days” (not the church age, since the prophesied last days were still future when he wrote of them in his last epistle, 2 Timothy 3:1-3) is this warning concerning the religious leaders of the last days. They would observe the outward form (church buildings, sacraments, religious services, etc.) of “godliness” (that is, “religion”), but would reject its supernatural aspects. They would desire the trappings of religious professionalism since they would be “lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God”.

Such specifications aptly describe the modern world of scientism and liberal theology, which pervades practically all religious denominations and overlaps with all kinds of liberal social movements (women’s liberation, gay rights, “New Age” pantheism, and others).

This prophecy is not given in Scripture simply as a matter of information. It contains a warning urgently needed by Bible-believing Christians who are under pressure today to compromise with humanistic liberals on this great doctrine of God’s creative power. Many have accepted the evolutionary system of “ages geology,” and this is tragic and dangerous. Instead of compromising with evolutionary naturalists and religious liberals, as many evangelicals today are inclined to do, Paul warns: “From such turn away!” HMM

I think Peter says it well..

2 Peter 3:
[SUP]3 [/SUP]knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, [SUP]4 [/SUP]and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” [SUP]5 [/SUP]For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,

All modern day science is based on the fact that things as they are today, are exactly the same as they were on creation. that their was no catastrophic earthwide flood which changed everything. So when we look at things this way, it appears that the earth is old. But it is all based on assumptions which are not true.
[h=1][/h]

 

[Elin]

Congratulations! That's awesome news!
Teaching has been a little slow (I'm currently a relief teacher). I've also been doing some learning support volunteering at my local school. I'm also eagerly awaiting September. That's when Arlene comes to visit me for the first time! Bless you, sister.

Hey!! Psychomom! How have you been sis?

EG!
had some ups and downs. (AKA life...lol)

i have to say, when i rejoined, i looked at a thread that was (IMHO) a buncha lies.
but, there was EG, speaking truth in the midst of it.
balm, pure balm.

Is this something that can't wait until after class?

Not when it comes to psychomom!

Sorry, we'll get back to the lesson.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Not when it comes to psychomom!

Sorry, we'll get back to the lesson.

amen, when a sister comes back, everything gets put on hold to serve her!

 

[Elin]

I've asked you several questions and you just dodge them. For instance,
can you tell me why some facets within a closed system
decreasing in entropy is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

A "closed system" is no longer general belief (soft science is always changing its mind).
That allows for what cannot be observed under a microscope.

And the second law of thermodynamics is about increasing entropy.

Is this a trick question?

 

[2Thewaters]

The system is closed since light speed limits interactions

the "open system" lie is just to try and make evolutionary false religion more palatable to people who took physics in our deficient school system

 

[superdave5221]

Jack H: Some words of advice.

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding.
Pro 3:6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight.

Pro 29:25 The fear of man brings a snare, But he who trusts in the LORD will be exalted.

In the parable of the sower, (Mat. 13), Jesus speaks of the sower of the Word of God, and how the seed falls on hard ground, shallow ground, and some on good ground.

Our God is a very gracious God. A farmer would never sow seeds on hard ground, or among thorns. He would first prepare the ground so that the seed would not be wasted. But Jesus cast His seeds, (Gospel), on everyone, even those who are hard hearted. He is generous to all, not wanting any to perish.

A person who trusts God in all things, prepares a fertile heart for the Lord, so that God's seed will be fruitful, multiplying many times (Mat. 13:23).

 

[Elin]

Fallable” is not a word.

Fallible is a word.

 

[superdave5221]

You had to learn the hard way like I did I see.. It is very humbling, but also very freeing!

Yes. I owe you, and Psychomom, RachelBibleStudent, Zone, and others whom Holy Spirit used to open my eyes. It is good to be used by Holy Spirit!!!!

I may not always agree on everything, but at least my disagreement will start with my understanding of the Word of God, and not with man's word.

As for humbling, it is a very small thing, compared with what Jesus did, even to become a man, much less His experiences on the cross.

There is nothing that I can do to compare with how my Lord, Savior, and King humbled Himself for me.

 

[christianperson91]

the "open system" lie is just to try and make evolutionary false religion more palatable to people who took physics in our deficient school system

I think calling evolution a false religion is inaccurte. The scientific theory of evolution relies on supporting scientific evidence to be valid, a religion does not rely on scientific evidence to stay alive. If evolution is false, it still would not be a false religion.

 

[Elin]

Jesus was a young-earth creationist. Jesus consistently treated the miracle accounts of the Old Testament as straightforward, truthful, historical accounts (e.g., creation of Adam, Noah and the Flood, Lot and his wife in Sodom, Moses and the manna, and Jonah in the fish). He continually affirmed the authority of Scripture over men’s ideas and traditions (Matthew 15:1–9). In Mark 10:6 we have the clearest (but not the only) statement showing that Jesus was a young-earth creationist. He teaches that Adam and Eve were made at the “beginning of creation,” not billions of years after the beginning, as would be the case if the universe were really billions of years old. So, if Jesus was a young-earth creationist, then how can His faithful followers have any other view?

I would argue Jesus knew full well they were allegorical stories.

So Jesus used a non-factual allegory as factual proof of his resurrection?

"As Jonah was. . .so the Son of Man will be"

I don't think so.

"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be"

"You err because you do not know the Scriptures--have you not read. . .in the account of the bush,
how God said. . .He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken."

"it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

Jesus didn't use the allegorical as that on which future facts stand.
He used facts as proof of future facts.

Scientific dating methods aren't just 'chosen' by people as some matter of belief, they are backed up by science, fact, testable experiment, verifiable mathematics and proof.

And you still fail to deal with the unproven assumptions on which radiometric dating rests.

Besides, what Paul says was said by Socrates (also a Greek) hundreds of years before Paul. 'I know that I know nothing'. Don't you actually realize that institutionalized, popular Christianity borrows from the same academic-types you slate?

Yes, and there are also other things Paul quotes from secular writers.

There's truth in lots of places outside the bible.

Yes, and those truths do not contradict Scripture.

 

[Elin]

You say that dating methods are made on assumptions about the past, but they aren't. Dating elements is actually fairly simple. An element, for instance carbon, is always carbon, unless that atom is split and it becomes freed energy, or unless it is fused into another element. So, the properties of carbon are always going to be the properties of carbon, until that carbon is no longer carbon.

Dating methods work on this principle. Certain elements are unable to fuse into heavier elements, mostly radioactive ones. Instead, because of their atomic instability, they degenerate into less heavy elements. The rate of degeneration can be very, very accurately measured in a laboratory. We simply measure how much of the given element degenerates into a less heavy element over a given period of time.

This is used to work out the half-lives of radioactive elements.

We can then apply this rate of decay to samples of the element in rock or other things. We measure the weight of the sample, look to see what percentage of the element has decayed into a less heavy element, then apply the mathematics and work out its age.

However, the half life of Carbon 14 does not allow for millions and millions of years.
There would be none measurable in the rocks after that amount of time, and yet we find it there.
Measureable decomposition of Carbon 14 is limited to less than 60,000 years.

 

[Elin]

Right, because going with the masses who believe without question that the earth is billions of years old because that's what you were told to believe for years in public schools is so much more of an original thought.

I would rather believe that Genesis is a literal and historical account and be wrong than to believe in the billions of years fantasies and have God say to me on judgment day, "Why didn't you believe my Word?"

I actually find this argument absolutely hilarious, because for the majority of the past 2000 years 7-day creation and young Earth theory was the majority view that people believed without question, until scientific evidence to the contrary was presented and was allowed to be heard.

Perhaps as hilarious as your misunderstanding of his meaning.

JackH accuses YEC's of believing what they are taught, and of having no "original thought."

Megaman's reply is that believing what OEC's are taught for years in public school
is no more "original thought"
than what the YEC's are taught and believe.

 

[megaman125]

I think calling evolution a false religion is inaccurte. The scientific theory of evolution relies on supporting scientific evidence to be valid, a religion does not rely on scientific evidence to stay alive. If evolution is false, it still would not be a false religion.

the theory of evolution is a set of beliefs about events that supposedly happened billions of years ago. These events cannot be demonstrated, aren't repeatable, and haven't been observed. The changes that they propose happened have not and cannot be verified. You start asking for observable and repeatable evidence for changes in kinds, the type of radical changes that evolutionists claim happened, and they have nothing but assumptions. The only thing they tell you is that it happens over billions of years, and you just have to assume and believe that's true. It is a religious and faith based belief at its core.

 

[Elin]

I know you've been corrected on this before on this website. Evolution doesn't suggest one species gives birth to an entirely different species. Evolution is an incredibly gradual process - like aging.

Wrong.

That's adaptation.

Evolution is of one species into another.

Adaptation is within the species, and does not evolve into another species.

No one denies the adaptation within the species of science.

What is denied is the evolution of one species into another of speculative theory.

 

[JackH]

JackH accuses YEC's of believing what they are taught, and of having no "original thought."

One of the YEC clones posted a lengthy blurb today (see post #600) that was copied word-for-word from Institute for Creation Research. One might believe, since he gave no attribution or acknowledgement pertaining to the source of the information, that he thought it up all by himself. Snicker.

And a bunch of YECs "Liked" his post.

Are any of you YECs smarter than a 5th grader? I haven't seen any evidence that you are.

Some 5th graders know more about geology, physics, astronomy, biology, and other sciences, based upon your insistence that the world is 6,000 years old, than any of you do

 

[Fishbait]

Copying and pasting from the KJV Bible is not illegal. The KJV is not copyrighted.

What you did is most likely a copyright violation.

Go up against the KJV? That is your source for absolute truth, the KJV?

You seem to 'copy and paste' from the many websites on evolution.