-
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.
K
Percepi,
John Clayton was a scientist who tried to prove that God isn't real, and through his study he found evidence to the contrary, and became a christian because of it. The bible has never been proven wrong, and there are more witnesses throughout history to the fact that the bible is real, God is real, and God is right than any other topic requiring witnesses. Most people believe in God and what He says, and He says the world was made in an actual week, and how many years it's been from Adam to Jesus. Yes, there is still faith required- because without faith it's impossible to please God. But contrary to what you think, I have an open mind. If someone told me that pine trees grow on clouds in the sky, I would ask them to prove it, but until then I will believe that pine trees do not grow in the clouds of the sky. But I am willing to hear what you have to say.
John Clayton was a scientist who tried to prove that God isn't real, and through his study he found evidence to the contrary, and became a christian because of it. The bible has never been proven wrong, and there are more witnesses throughout history to the fact that the bible is real, God is real, and God is right than any other topic requiring witnesses. Most people believe in God and what He says, and He says the world was made in an actual week, and how many years it's been from Adam to Jesus. Yes, there is still faith required- because without faith it's impossible to please God. But contrary to what you think, I have an open mind. If someone told me that pine trees grow on clouds in the sky, I would ask them to prove it, but until then I will believe that pine trees do not grow in the clouds of the sky. But I am willing to hear what you have to say.
Last edited:
C
Exactly, his strength was like the strength of horses. If someone is said to have moved like an elephant, would you expect them to be talking about someone very skinny? If someone said, he moved his legs like tree trunks, would you then conclude he had legs like twigs??? Can you see how your faith is getting in the way of reason?
So now you're trusting corroborating testimonies, which is exactly what the Bible is.
But again, how do we determine which scientific tests apply? We often can't do it without testimony.
Sorry, when did I ever claim such a thing.
And of course you've chosen to blindly believe these experts, as they support your particular faith. You accept their testimony, even though they haven't given you a shrewd of evidence that you can explain to others. You merely cite authorities as your proof.
Why would I want to do that? Science is used to support creationism.
From what I've seen, that's exactly what you do. Just look at how stubborn you're being about the behemoth passage. You are one of the most religious people I've dialoged with. I know some very staunch skeptics have openly admit they don't know what the animal is, and that a modern animal does not fit the description. But they don't just blindly try to explain it away as a description of a twig like tail moving. They have their beliefs but they're not religious about them.
So now you're trusting corroborating testimonies, which is exactly what the Bible is.
But again, how do we determine which scientific tests apply? We often can't do it without testimony.
Sorry, when did I ever claim such a thing.
And of course you've chosen to blindly believe these experts, as they support your particular faith. You accept their testimony, even though they haven't given you a shrewd of evidence that you can explain to others. You merely cite authorities as your proof.
Why would I want to do that? Science is used to support creationism.
From what I've seen, that's exactly what you do. Just look at how stubborn you're being about the behemoth passage. You are one of the most religious people I've dialoged with. I know some very staunch skeptics have openly admit they don't know what the animal is, and that a modern animal does not fit the description. But they don't just blindly try to explain it away as a description of a twig like tail moving. They have their beliefs but they're not religious about them.
Last edited by a moderator:
C
Bowman you threw out this verse, but never actually explained how it makes your case that animals were created before mankind, and originally were made to eat meat and not plants. I noticed you just kind of abandoned this argument very quietly, but thought I'd give you a chance to explain it. I guess I'm just curious as to why this makes sense to you (whether I agree with it or not).
I ask because this is the only post in the thread where you've actually tried to argue for something. On most posts you just ask strange questions, but I can't help but wonder where you were going with this. Forgive my curiosity.
I ask because this is the only post in the thread where you've actually tried to argue for something. On most posts you just ask strange questions, but I can't help but wonder where you were going with this. Forgive my curiosity.
The science of people like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind is used to support a 6000 year old world.
There have been numerous threads in these forums on the young earth vs. old earth issue. Young earth advocates usually cite articles on the Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham) website.
I would suggest that someone really interested in exploring this issue objectively visit Ken Ham's Creation Museum in Kentucky. And then visit the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh.
Or take a ride on one of the real dinosaurs at Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Rodeo.
There have been numerous threads in these forums on the young earth vs. old earth issue. Young earth advocates usually cite articles on the Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham) website.
I would suggest that someone really interested in exploring this issue objectively visit Ken Ham's Creation Museum in Kentucky. And then visit the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh.
Or take a ride on one of the real dinosaurs at Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Rodeo.
C
Yes, they're very presuppositional in their approach meaning they start with the premise that the Bible is a reliable and accurate source of history. They're much like forensic scientists who have interviewed many people about an event in the past, and have determined their corroborating testimonies are accurate. They then use those testimonies to explain things they are seeing in the present. In their view (and mine for that matter) the best way to learn about our origins is to interpret Genesis correctly, without trying to fit it into any modern ideas.
And AiG, while one of the best sources of creationism information, is not alone. Gary Bates ministry over at CMI is top-notch as well. I particularly like their video productions. Also, Creation Today is a great resource, and of course ICR. John MacArthur, has also been a strong voice for a literal approach to Genesis, as has Dr. Barrack, Professor Old Testament and Director of Th.D. Studies at The Master’s Seminary. He'll be writing the Genesis portion of the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary. There's a lot happening that leads me to believe the church might be returning to the foundation of Genesis. I hope my perception is correct, because the church is not on a good trajectory right now.
And AiG, while one of the best sources of creationism information, is not alone. Gary Bates ministry over at CMI is top-notch as well. I particularly like their video productions. Also, Creation Today is a great resource, and of course ICR. John MacArthur, has also been a strong voice for a literal approach to Genesis, as has Dr. Barrack, Professor Old Testament and Director of Th.D. Studies at The Master’s Seminary. He'll be writing the Genesis portion of the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary. There's a lot happening that leads me to believe the church might be returning to the foundation of Genesis. I hope my perception is correct, because the church is not on a good trajectory right now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rotflol....!
Job speaks for itself regarding animal death BEFORE sin....as animals ATE animals LONG before mankind was even created....as clearly stated in the above passages.
We're still waiting for your 'deer in the headlight' eyes to clear so that YOU can stop ignoring it and provide a counter exegesis to the plain reading of the text...and we know all YEC'ers just love the plain reading of scripture!
Its clear that these passages were NOT in your bag of answers.
Caught you with your pants down on this one....lol...
But did you picture someone who looked like two horses? No, you pictured someone who had the strength of two horses.
Yes, it's very possible. In fact, I used to say this all the time when me and my step brother shared rooms. Every morning, he would walk heavy and slam doors shut. I always told him he sounded like an elephant stomping and rummaging around. He was quite thin and tall.
My boss also has a small dog who occasionally runs around the room when she's excited. According to the people downstairs, she is referred to as sounding like a herd of elephants. Does this mean she looks like an elephant? No! She's only a foot or two long!
Why would you say someone's legs moved like tree trunks? Tree trunks don't move! If you're referring to how his legs looks, then talk about how they LOOKED like tree trunks, not how they moved.
I listed other reasons why science is more reliable. You're nitpicking what I say and ignoring the other parts that add onto my statements. What you're doing is dishonest.
You're alluding to the idea that all forms of communication are a form of hearsay.
I already addressed this: "It's always possible that sources are wrong. I can look at a scientific paper and understand that it's technically possible for that paper to be entirely fabricated. But I trust the scientific community due to the mass number of scientists who scrutinize each other's studies, the results of research being used in today's technology, and the ability to analyze the works of these scientists to understand how they came to their conclusions. It's not as simple as saying, "In the end, both are giving their testimony, so both are equally reliable." There are numerous variables you are ignoring."
This is a bold faced lie.
I nearly cried laughing at this statement. I almost wanted to cry at the same time though, because the scientific illiteracy behind creation "science" is vast. None of it is actually proven unless one concludes creationism happened first, in which case people say "see, that proved it!" Here's an example of creationist logic using an invisible elephant.
"An invisible elephant with magical powers created the universe from a peanut. The universe obviously exists, therefore the invisible elephant must exist! And look, peanuts exist too! How can you explain that?!" Creationist logic assumes God exists before they make their arguments so that the arguments fit.
Person A: 1 + 1 = 3
Person B: No, it's 2.
Person A: No, it's 3. When you add 1 and 1, you must move the 1 to the other side so it's 1 - x = 1. x = 3. Therefore 1 + 1 = 3.
Person B: That's not how math works.
Person A: You believe 1 + 1 = 2 because you rely on faith, not evidence. That's why you're being stubborn.
The example above is precisely what it's like talking to you. You keep calling me stubborn because I won't accept one of your arguments that is entirely flawed.
The word religious is hard to define, but your use of the word is so vague in which any criticism of an idea can be referred to as "religious". You're using words incorrectly to make it sound like I'm religious when I'm not. You try to make it sound like I have faith when you know bloody well that I don't rely on faith. You're a liar. This is why I haven't even begun discussing evolution in detail with you because you're merely looking for ways to manipulate everything I say around into something that fits your own flawed definitions to support your own fallacious views. You quote mine and you assume. And you know what they say about people who assume...
I'm done conversing with you. You're too dishonest.
The science doesn't support the Bible. You take the Bible, assume it's true, then come up with an explanation that sounds right. "Well, if the Bible is true, then it would make sense that everything would be layered after a great flood" when in reality we wouldn't see the same kind of layers as we see today - which has been proven.
BTW, you just admitted that the Bible is accepted as fact and that all contradicting evidence is therefore entirely discarded. That's not how science works.
Yes, it's very possible. In fact, I used to say this all the time when me and my step brother shared rooms. Every morning, he would walk heavy and slam doors shut. I always told him he sounded like an elephant stomping and rummaging around. He was quite thin and tall.
My boss also has a small dog who occasionally runs around the room when she's excited. According to the people downstairs, she is referred to as sounding like a herd of elephants. Does this mean she looks like an elephant? No! She's only a foot or two long!
Why would you say someone's legs moved like tree trunks? Tree trunks don't move! If you're referring to how his legs looks, then talk about how they LOOKED like tree trunks, not how they moved.
I listed other reasons why science is more reliable. You're nitpicking what I say and ignoring the other parts that add onto my statements. What you're doing is dishonest.
You're alluding to the idea that all forms of communication are a form of hearsay.
I already addressed this: "It's always possible that sources are wrong. I can look at a scientific paper and understand that it's technically possible for that paper to be entirely fabricated. But I trust the scientific community due to the mass number of scientists who scrutinize each other's studies, the results of research being used in today's technology, and the ability to analyze the works of these scientists to understand how they came to their conclusions. It's not as simple as saying, "In the end, both are giving their testimony, so both are equally reliable." There are numerous variables you are ignoring."
This is a bold faced lie.
I nearly cried laughing at this statement. I almost wanted to cry at the same time though, because the scientific illiteracy behind creation "science" is vast. None of it is actually proven unless one concludes creationism happened first, in which case people say "see, that proved it!" Here's an example of creationist logic using an invisible elephant.
"An invisible elephant with magical powers created the universe from a peanut. The universe obviously exists, therefore the invisible elephant must exist! And look, peanuts exist too! How can you explain that?!" Creationist logic assumes God exists before they make their arguments so that the arguments fit.
Person A: 1 + 1 = 3
Person B: No, it's 2.
Person A: No, it's 3. When you add 1 and 1, you must move the 1 to the other side so it's 1 - x = 1. x = 3. Therefore 1 + 1 = 3.
Person B: That's not how math works.
Person A: You believe 1 + 1 = 2 because you rely on faith, not evidence. That's why you're being stubborn.
The example above is precisely what it's like talking to you. You keep calling me stubborn because I won't accept one of your arguments that is entirely flawed.
The word religious is hard to define, but your use of the word is so vague in which any criticism of an idea can be referred to as "religious". You're using words incorrectly to make it sound like I'm religious when I'm not. You try to make it sound like I have faith when you know bloody well that I don't rely on faith. You're a liar. This is why I haven't even begun discussing evolution in detail with you because you're merely looking for ways to manipulate everything I say around into something that fits your own flawed definitions to support your own fallacious views. You quote mine and you assume. And you know what they say about people who assume...
I'm done conversing with you. You're too dishonest.
The science doesn't support the Bible. You take the Bible, assume it's true, then come up with an explanation that sounds right. "Well, if the Bible is true, then it would make sense that everything would be layered after a great flood" when in reality we wouldn't see the same kind of layers as we see today - which has been proven.
BTW, you just admitted that the Bible is accepted as fact and that all contradicting evidence is therefore entirely discarded. That's not how science works.
O
One of the best videos about 6000 year old earth I ever found
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1msS71xL00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1msS71xL00
Math is an applied concept. It's a concept that's applied to reality. A single object is given a name, one. With two ones, we obtain a different one, we call it two. Essentially, this is how math works. It takes the very simple concept of numbers and uses them to make accurate prediction of further numbers. For example, we can work out 5 x 5 = 25. Of course, math can get pretty complicated, and there's often debate about certain higher mathematical concepts. But, I'm not nearly smart enough to understand any of it.
O O
Above is one O and one O. Together, we see two Os. It's that simple. It really is.
And if you're going to ask whether we should trust human knowledge or God's knowledge, know that my answer is, "There's no evidence that God's knowledge is anything more than man's knowledge given a godly status."
O O
Above is one O and one O. Together, we see two Os. It's that simple. It really is.
And if you're going to ask whether we should trust human knowledge or God's knowledge, know that my answer is, "There's no evidence that God's knowledge is anything more than man's knowledge given a godly status."