snowflake Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 14 hours ago, MormonMason said: A dash of elements from an exploding supernova blew into the dust and gas that originated from the star that gave its life to generate the nebula that became the stellar nursery to our solar system. The motion of churning and rotation began from the eddy current. This led to the formation of the solar disk. After a long process of time, with many other events occurring prior, the moon formed close to the earth, causing super-waves to crash upon the surface, which led to the formation of clay from the solid, rocky minerals on the surface. There was as yet no soil. And so on, and so forth. I most certainly do not believe it all was an accident. But I also do not discount evolution as part of the creative process. It makes sense to me and displays a pattern underneath it all and not random chance. This is more like science fiction than science. Pure fantasy on equal ground with any other evolutionary religion. Just a few questions, how did the moon form close enough to the earth without a collision? Why are all the planets in our solar system so different if they came off of a part of the sun which is all hydrogen and helium? Where did all the heavy elements come from? How does a gas cloud collapse in on itself when gasses have never been seen doing this? Why do two of the planets rotate retrograde compared to the other 6 violating the law of angular momentum? Like evolution, the nebular hypothesis theory has some massive holes you need to gloss right over.
LittleNipper Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 4 hours ago, Gray said: If you want to describe scientists and the scientific method that way, that's your choice, but science has an actual meaning and you're using it to describe non-scientific endeavors. And your applying it to mean secular only ---- no GOD allowed!
LittleNipper Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 4 hours ago, MormonMason said: Even if we went with your linked article's claim that the deposits in the ice layers are seasonal rather than yearly (additional observations showing that the layers are formed yearly), that would still be a range of between 119,500 (four seasons) and 239,000 (two seasons) years for some of those cores. Still more years than in the Bible. If we postulate or consider years without precipitation it potentially adds even more years to those numbers. Science is about what is observed. Sometimes we don't get to see every aspect of a particular situation, but if other examples are out there one can piece together bits of data and fit it all to what can be or has been observed. Sometimes we fit things together incorrectly. But in the case of the ice cores, what we observe is that layers are formed yearly in the ice. There is no good reason to suppose irregularity of such great degree given what can be and has been observed. But no matter how we look at it there still are far more yearly layers in the ice than there are years in the Bible. More scientific research shows: http://www.icr.org/article/ice-cores-age-earth/
Calm Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 7 minutes ago, LittleNipper said: More scientific research shows: http://www.icr.org/article/ice-cores-age-earth/ That article was written in 92 with most references from 70s and 80s. Great for 25 years ago, but got anything more current? 1
LittleNipper Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Calm said: That article was written in 92 with most references from 70s and 80s. Great for 25 years ago, but got anything more current? See the following http://www.icr.org/article/8181 ----- PS> The Descent of Man is still in print... Edited May 9, 2018 by LittleNipper
Gray Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 53 minutes ago, LittleNipper said: And your applying it to mean secular only ---- no GOD allowed! Science is absolutely a secular endeavor. God is outside of the realm of scientific inquiry.
LittleNipper Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Gray said: Science is absolutely a secular endeavor. God is outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. GOD is, but truth and history are not. Some thirty-eight hundred times the Bible declares, “God said,” or “Thus says the Lord” (e.g. Ex. 14:1; 20:1; Lev. 4:1; Num. 4:1; Deut. 4:2; 32:48; Isa. 1:10, 24; Jer. 1:11; Ezek. 1:3; etc.). Paul also recognized that the things he was writing were the Lord’s commandments (1 Cor. 14:37), and they were acknowledged as such by the believers (1 Thess. 2:13). Peter proclaimed the certainty of the Scriptures and the necessity of heeding the unalterable and certain Word of God (2 Pet. 1:16-21). John too recognized that his teaching was from God; to reject his teaching was to reject God (1 John 4:6).17 For other passages which either declare or assume the Bible as God’s Word see Deuteronomy 6:6-9, 17-18; Joshua 1:8-9; 8:32-35; 2 Samuel 22:31; Ps. 1:2; 12:6; 19:7-11; 93:5; 119:9, 11, 18, 89-93, 130; Prov. 30:5-6; Matthew 5:17-19; 22:29; Mark 13:31; Luke 16:17; John 2:22; 5:24; 10:35; Acts 17:11; Romans 10:17; Colossians 3:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:15-17; 1 Peter 1:23-25; 2 Peter 3:15-16; Revelation 1:2; 22:18. But isn’t this a circular kind of argument, and is that a valid argument? In a court of law, the accused has the right to testify on his own behalf. That testimony should be considered in the light of the evidence. In this case, the evidence, both external and internal, strongly supports the claims of the Bible. In response to those who would reject the above-mentioned argument, it should be noted that the writers who made those claims for the Scripture were trustworthy men who defended the integrity of the Scripture at great personal sacrifice. Jeremiah received his message directly from the Lord (Jer. 11:1-3), yet because of his defense of the Scripture some attempted to kill him (Jer. 11:21); even his family rejected him (Jer. 12:6). Counterfeit prophets were readily recognized (Jer. 23:21, 32; 28:1-17). However, the Bible’s claims should not be understood as arguing in a circle or by circular reasoning. The testimony of reliable witnesses—particularly of Jesus, but also of others such as Moses, Joshua, David, Daniel, and Nehemiah in the Old Testament, and John and Paul in the New Testament—affirmed the authority and verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.18 The ever present assumption of the writers of the Bible is that the Bible is the God-breathed Word of God. A good illustration is seen in Psalm 19:7-11 which not only declares the Bible to be the Word of God, but identifies six perfections with corresponding transformations of human character that the Bible will produce in those who study and apply it in faith.
Gray Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 (edited) 36 minutes ago, LittleNipper said: GOD is, but truth and history are not. Some thirty-eight hundred times the Bible declares, “God said,” or “Thus says the Lord” (e.g. Ex. 14:1; 20:1; Lev. 4:1; Num. 4:1; Deut. 4:2; 32:48; Isa. 1:10, 24; Jer. 1:11; Ezek. 1:3; etc.). Paul also recognized that the things he was writing were the Lord’s commandments (1 Cor. 14:37), and they were acknowledged as such by the believers (1 Thess. 2:13). Peter proclaimed the certainty of the Scriptures and the necessity of heeding the unalterable and certain Word of God (2 Pet. 1:16-21). John too recognized that his teaching was from God; to reject his teaching was to reject God (1 John 4:6).17 For other passages which either declare or assume the Bible as God’s Word see Deuteronomy 6:6-9, 17-18; Joshua 1:8-9; 8:32-35; 2 Samuel 22:31; Ps. 1:2; 12:6; 19:7-11; 93:5; 119:9, 11, 18, 89-93, 130; Prov. 30:5-6; Matthew 5:17-19; 22:29; Mark 13:31; Luke 16:17; John 2:22; 5:24; 10:35; Acts 17:11; Romans 10:17; Colossians 3:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:15-17; 1 Peter 1:23-25; 2 Peter 3:15-16; Revelation 1:2; 22:18. But isn’t this a circular kind of argument, and is that a valid argument? In a court of law, the accused has the right to testify on his own behalf. That testimony should be considered in the light of the evidence. In this case, the evidence, both external and internal, strongly supports the claims of the Bible. In response to those who would reject the above-mentioned argument, it should be noted that the writers who made those claims for the Scripture were trustworthy men who defended the integrity of the Scripture at great personal sacrifice. Jeremiah received his message directly from the Lord (Jer. 11:1-3), yet because of his defense of the Scripture some attempted to kill him (Jer. 11:21); even his family rejected him (Jer. 12:6). Counterfeit prophets were readily recognized (Jer. 23:21, 32; 28:1-17). However, the Bible’s claims should not be understood as arguing in a circle or by circular reasoning. The testimony of reliable witnesses—particularly of Jesus, but also of others such as Moses, Joshua, David, Daniel, and Nehemiah in the Old Testament, and John and Paul in the New Testament—affirmed the authority and verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.18 The ever present assumption of the writers of the Bible is that the Bible is the God-breathed Word of God. A good illustration is seen in Psalm 19:7-11 which not only declares the Bible to be the Word of God, but identifies six perfections with corresponding transformations of human character that the Bible will produce in those who study and apply it in faith. You don't seem to understand the distinction I'm making, which is what is making you fall for this young earth stuff in the first place. Biblical literalism is a topic unrelated to the natural sciences. But it is in the perview of history, and your relatively modern interpretive method would not have been recognizable to any of the Biblical writers. Edited May 9, 2018 by Gray
MormonMason Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 4 hours ago, snowflake said: This is more like science fiction than science. Pure fantasy on equal ground with any other evolutionary religion. That right there shows how behind you have gotten in your science education. Everything I stated has the basis of scientific study and direct observation over the last couple decades. Here is a stellar nursery: There are newly forming stars in that cloud of dust and gas that itself was formed from the remains of a now dead star that exploded and spread its 'ashes' across space. Here is another (the so-called "pillars of creation"): 4 hours ago, snowflake said: Just a few questions, how did the moon form close enough to the earth without a collision? I never stated that the moon was not formed by collision. I just skipped over it for the sake of brevity and stated in so many words that I left some things out. That is exactly why it formed so closely. The moon has been moving slowly away from the earth ever so slowly. It currently moves about 3.7592 centimeters, or 1.48 inches, away every year. This has been measurable and has been measured. 4 hours ago, snowflake said: Why are all the planets in our solar system so different if they came off of a part of the sun which is all hydrogen and helium? Where did all the heavy elements come from? How does a gas cloud collapse in on itself when gasses have never been seen doing this? Why do two of the planets rotate retrograde compared to the other 6 violating the law of angular momentum? Like evolution, the nebular hypothesis theory has some massive holes you need to gloss right over. You really aren't kidding around? Ever studied the spectroscopic analyses of the sun? Our sun is by no means composed only of hydrogen and helium. Many of the elements on earth also are in the sun. See the following site for partial list of those that have been detected so far: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Tables/suncomp.html Where did the heavy elements come from? Nuclear fusion (up to nickel), supernovae created a kind of nuclear accelerator/atom smasher, as well as by a high energy gamma-ray burst from two colliding neutron stars, that created the rest. That is what resulted in the creation of the heavy elements. The solar nebula was seeded with them from another explosion and collision. That is what the latest science implies. Ever hear of metal-rich stars? Our sun is one of them. Metal-rich stars are necessary in order to form planets. The stellar nursery in which our solar system was formed was the remains of a metal rich star. As to why a couple planets in our system are now retrograde, that is explained by something that has been observed in varying stages across the galaxy. That is planetary migration. It turns out that there is evidence of migration of gas giants in a number of solar systems that have been studied. They migrate during their formation, and this has been observed in other systems. There is no reason to deny that such could have happened in this one. Computer modeling based on known laws of physics and current observations also has shown that such could have happened. Uranus and Neptune now are believed to have swapped places. Look up the Nice Model. If the two were close enough at the time it occurred, a planetary collision could have flipped the axis of Uranus, and the same with Venus. It turns out that the north pole of Venus is facing southward. Something big flipped the planet Venus. It still is rotating the same way all the other planets are rotating but its poles were flipped by some interaction during its formation. Others instead say that Venus stopped rotating and then began to rotate another direction due to some other interaction. As to the nebular/accretion hypotheses we have directly observed the formation of solar systems in various stages of development. There is enough to be seen that many of the pieces now can be fit together rather easily, right down to observable accretion disks. There still are a few missing pieces, but nowhere nearly as many as were missing a couple decades ago. This still leaves room for competing hypotheses but the most likely solution is that multiple processes were involved. Scientists used to argue about the composition of light. Occam's Razor did not work in that case. It turned out that the real, more difficult solution was right, and that is that light is both particle and wave (particle-wave duality), not one or the other. 3
MormonMason Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, LittleNipper said: More scientific research shows: http://www.icr.org/article/ice-cores-age-earth/ That one is a little better. But even the person who wrote the article states that further research is necessary and that such studies should be a priority for creationists. I agree. However, he is mistaken about the 160,000-year first layer claim. Dome C extends back 800,000 years and Vostok over 400,000 years. Many of the layers are visible to the eye. Here is an example of one segment of an ice core, up close: Others from closer to the bottommost layers are less easy to see and are counted using electronic methods. But they are there, nonetheless. And there are more than there are years in the Bible as currently written. Edited May 9, 2018 by MormonMason
LittleNipper Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, Gray said: You don't seem to understand the distinction I'm making, which is what is making you fall for this young earth stuff in the first place. Biblical literalism is a topic unrelated to the natural sciences. But it is in the perview of history, and your relatively modern interpretive method would not have been recognizable to any of the Biblical writers. What you're saying is that the writers were fabricating stories ------ much like Joseph Smith did in order to instill and produce selective behavior habits ---- is that what your saying? GOD didn't create the Universe and so could not have revealed to anyone how long it took. And Joseph Smith believing this, figures he'd simply cash in on the story telling in order to gain some fame/notoriety while he existed ---- is that not so? Back in the day being a circuit preacher or a prophet was akin to being a mall shooter ------ it was another way to become noticed (if that is what one is aiming for). Fact is fact and story tell no matter how well intended is a lie and frankly I believe your problem started perhaps with your connection with MORMONISM and not with Jesus Christ who emphatically reiterated Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the FLOOD. And Jesus is/was GOD and was/is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit and should know HISTORY and CREATION because CHRIST is also the CREATOR. Better reread the New Testament and put aside all that fable you cling to for family sake. The fact is that you're the "modern " thinker who believes that the Biblical epic is akin to The Egyptian tale, Greek gods and goddesses, the Roman counterparts and the Nephi voyage! Truth and FACT are what separate man made religious fervor (no matter how well intended) from nonsense. The Bible is Factual and Truth and can be fully trusted unlike human interpretations of data to prove "NATURALISM" (which is simply another stab at man made religion circumventing the REAL GOD) Edited May 10, 2018 by LittleNipper
LittleNipper Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 12 hours ago, MormonMason said: That one is a little better. But even the person who wrote the article states that further research is necessary and that such studies should be a priority for creationists. I agree. However, he is mistaken about the 160,000-year first layer claim. Dome C extends back 800,000 years and Vostok over 400,000 years. Many of the layers are visible to the eye. Here is an example of one segment of an ice core, up close: Others from closer to the bottommost layers are less easy to see and are counted using electronic methods. But they are there, nonetheless. And there are more than there are years in the Bible as currently written. I'm going to suggest that if you were to take an ice core from a frozen lake that experiences rain and showers that might result from freak storms or showers that in turn froze, you might just find such layering. Now if the ice caps were already in place or an early result of the impending catastrophe ---- there might have been layering formed with each passing shower, storm as this DELUGE progressed over the course of 40 days and that part of the drying process and exposing of the land was quick successive layered freezings at the ice cap that helped to lower the ocean levels... Each layer might reveal what was happening such as volcanic eruptions or asteroidal/meteoric strikes. So the FLOOD may be the ultimate reason the ice caps exist at all! But evolutionists don't wish to believe a global FLOOD is possible and so they misinterpret...
Stargazer Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 On 5/3/2018 at 5:38 AM, MormonMason said: Personally, I stopped worrying about horses a long time ago. The animals called horses in the Book of Mormon may not have been what we today call horses. Ancient peoples sometimes gave common names to different creatures with which they were unfamiliar. Horses in the Book of Mormon also don't do horse things. They never are ridden. And they were gathered together and listed as subsistence animals along with cattle. Under the Law of Moses horses cannot be subsistence animals. No cloven hoof nor chewing of the cud. I once saw someone explain in writing all sorts of ways that "subsist" doesn't necessarily mean what it implies because it refers to horses. I saw another once suggest that there were no horses among the Nephites after a certain time because they ate them to extinction. Well, if the animals in the Book of Mormon were called "horses" but really weren't horses, there is no conflict with the Law of Moses, is there? The Nephites wouldn't have been the first people to name an unfamiliar animal with a familiar name. The ancient Greeks called a certain kind of animal swimming around the Nile a "river horse" but they weren't horses! Hippopotamus means "horse of the river". We know they weren't horses but the Greeks called them that. Why could not that have been a similar case among the Nephites? If they find horses dating to Book of Mormon times, cool! If they don't, no big deal. It no longer concerns me. Some of my ancestors were Native Americans -- a Northern California tribe called "Konkow" that spoke a dialect of Maiduan. Interestingly, they didn't have a word for horse or cow, there being none where they lived, and so what word in their language did they use to refer to the white settlers' livestock? "Sumi", which means "deer". The horses and cows looked vaguely like deer, so that's the word they used.
Gray Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, LittleNipper said: What you're saying is that the writers were fabricating stories ------ much like Joseph Smith did in order to instill and produce selective behavior habits ---- is that what your saying? GOD didn't create the Universe and so could not have revealed to anyone how long it took. And Joseph Smith believing this, figures he'd simply cash in on the story telling in order to gain some fame/notoriety while he existed ---- is that not so? Back in the day being a circuit preacher or a prophet was akin to being a mall shooter ------ it was another way to become noticed (if that is what one is aiming for). Fact is fact and story tell no matter how well intended is a lie and frankly I believe your problem started perhaps with your connection with MORMONISM and not with Jesus Christ who emphatically reiterated Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the FLOOD. And Jesus is/was GOD and was/is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit and should know HISTORY and CREATION because CHRIST is also the CREATOR. Better reread the New Testament and put aside all that fable you cling to for family sake. The fact is that you're the "modern " thinker who believes that the Biblical epic is akin to The Egyptian tale, Greek gods and goddesses, the Roman counterparts and the Nephi voyage! Truth and FACT are what separate man made religious fervor (no matter how well intended) from nonsense. The Bible is Factual and Truth and can be fully trusted unlike human interpretations of data to prove "NATURALISM" (which is simply another stab at man made religion circumventing the REAL GOD) Wow, you sure extrapolate a lot of content from a very short statement. Is this some kind of auto text generation algorithm in your head? Look, if you prefer ignorance to learning, that's fine. But you're missing the whole point of the Bible. How sad. The creation story was created by other cultures. The point of Biblical writers adopting it and making it their own was not to give a literal account of the creation. It was to put their God center stage into the popular folk tales of the day. It was an appeal to worship the God of Israel. Edited May 10, 2018 by Gray
LittleNipper Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 6 minutes ago, Gray said: Wow, you sure extrapolate a lot of content from a very short statement. Is this some kind of auto text generation algorithm in your head? Look, if you prefer ignorance to learning, that's fine. But you're missing the whole point of the Bible. How sad. The creation story was created by other cultures. The point of Biblical writers adopting it and making it their own was not to give a literal account of the creation. It was to put their God center stage into the popular folk tales of the day. Wow!!! If you prefer manmade theory to what the Bible says, you're missing the whole point of a true and honest LORD who one can trust when HE says He alone can save. Now, perhaps you need a Bible lesson: https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/did-jesus-say-he-created-in-six-literal-days/
Gray Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, LittleNipper said: Wow!!! If you prefer manmade theory to what the Bible says, you're missing the whole point of a true and honest LORD who one can trust when HE says He alone can save. You mean what you think the Bible says. The way you read the Bible distorts it. Quote Now, perhaps you need a Bible lesson: https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/did-jesus-say-he-created-in-six-literal-days/ Bad source. Edited May 10, 2018 by Gray
MormonMason Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 3 hours ago, Stargazer said: Some of my ancestors were Native Americans -- a Northern California tribe called "Konkow" that spoke a dialect of Maiduan. Interestingly, they didn't have a word for horse or cow, there being none where they lived, and so what word in their language did they use to refer to the white settlers' livestock? "Sumi", which means "deer". The horses and cows looked vaguely like deer, so that's the word they used. Yes, indeed. Some of the Native Americans in Mesoamerica also referred to the Spaniards as "deer riders." Another funny thing about the Book of Mormon is that it never mentions either deer or venison, or even other terms for deer. We know they were in Mesoamerica because they have been depicted in some of the artwork.
MormonMason Posted May 10, 2018 Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, LittleNipper said: I'm going to suggest that if you were to take an ice core from a frozen lake that experiences rain and showers that might result from freak storms or showers that in turn froze, you might just find such layering. Now if the ice caps were already in place or an early result of the impending catastrophe ---- there might have been layering formed with each passing shower, storm as this DELUGE progressed over the course of 40 days and that part of the drying process and exposing of the land was quick successive layered freezings at the ice cap that helped to lower the ocean levels... Each layer might reveal what was happening such as volcanic eruptions or asteroidal/meteoric strikes. So the FLOOD may be the ultimate reason the ice caps exist at all! But evolutionists don't wish to believe a global FLOOD is possible and so they misinterpret... There are no rain and showers in the regions of Antarctica whence the ice cores have been taken. Rain hasn't fallen on that continent since after the south circumpolar current began when a land bridge between South America and Antarctica broke. That is in part what keeps it so cold down there. And, come on! 800,000 rain showers/refreezes during the flood??? During the flood the Bible says it rained constantly for "forty days and forty nights." Even if we took it to mean "a long time" with no specificity of actual length of days, it would not count up to 800,000. You're reaching and stretching. But the layers do contain the record of atmospheric conditions during the times they were formed. That is what isotopic analyses are for. Here is the thing. One also can figure out the temperatures at when these isotopes were set in ice. There were no freeze/refreeze events. Antarctica has been frozen more years than there are recorded years in the Bible. Edited May 10, 2018 by MormonMason 1
rodheadlee Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 16 hours ago, LittleNipper said: What you're saying is that the writers were fabricating stories ------ much like Joseph Smith did in order to instill and produce selective behavior habits ---- is that what your saying? GOD didn't create the Universe and so could not have revealed to anyone how long it took. And Joseph Smith believing this, figures he'd simply cash in on the story telling in order to gain some fame/notoriety while he existed ---- is that not so? Back in the day being a circuit preacher or a prophet was akin to being a mall shooter ------ it was another way to become noticed (if that is what one is aiming for). Fact is fact and story tell no matter how well intended is a lie and frankly I believe your problem started perhaps with your connection with MORMONISM and not with Jesus Christ who emphatically reiterated Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the FLOOD. And Jesus is/was GOD and was/is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit and should know HISTORY and CREATION because CHRIST is also the CREATOR. Better reread the New Testament and put aside all that fable you cling to for family sake. The fact is that you're the "modern " thinker who believes that the Biblical epic is akin to The Egyptian tale, Greek gods and goddesses, the Roman counterparts and the Nephi voyage! Truth and FACT are what separate man made religious fervor (no matter how well intended) from nonsense. The Bible is Factual and Truth and can be fully trusted unlike human interpretations of data to prove "NATURALISM" (which is simply another stab at man made religion circumventing the REAL GOD) Hmmmm The Bible doesn't say God created the Universe, I don't believe He did but I believe He organized the Milky Way Galaxy. 1
sunstoned Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 (edited) On 5/9/2018 at 9:31 AM, LittleNipper said: The life you say evolved must have originated somewhere... So one either leads people to believe that life is a "natural process" and therefore popped into being as a result of natural influences, or one MUST believe life is the result of DIVINE CREATION! And I know of no evolutionist who promotes GOD much less DIVINE CREATION! Such is certainly not being presented in public schools as part of a secular package deal. I agree with you that life must have originated somewhere. And I don't think we really know where that somewhere is. Not yet anyway. The theory of evolution answers a lot of questions and has been vetted very well. But there are still questions, and scientist are still exploring. When and if new evidence is found, then the theory will be adjusted. That's a good thing about science. It self corrects. Not so much with religion. When new evidence presents itself, most religions, including our own do not accept it. Most of the time it is rejected in a knee jerk sort of way. That's where you get the "god of the gaps" situation where you have grown up people defending silly and completely discounted superstitions like a global flood, a 6000 year old earth, and no death before Adam and Eve (I am aware of the apologetic responses to these things, but for the most part they are contrived and unconvincing., and usually involve throwing a prophet or two under the bus ). As far as your Divine Creation theory goes, it really doesn't explain where life originated from. It just pushes the question back a generation. Fundies say god created life on earth. Well, that is not the origin of life is it? For the theory to work god has to be alive. Where did god come from? Who created him? Fundies will often say god wasn't created. He always existed. Again a cop out. Using that logic I could say life on earth wasn't created, it always existed. Edited May 11, 2018 by sunstoned 1
LittleNipper Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, rodheadlee said: Hmmmm The Bible doesn't say God created the Universe, I don't believe He did but I believe He organized the Milky Way Galaxy. Colossians 1:16 Everything was created by HIM, everything in heaven and on earth, everything seen and unseen, including all forces and powers, and all rulers and authorities. All things were created by GOD's SON, and everything was made for HIM. Can ALL and EVERYTHING mean anything less? Edited May 11, 2018 by LittleNipper
LittleNipper Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 7 hours ago, sunstoned said: I agree with you that life must have originated somewhere. And I don't think we really know where that somewhere is. Not yet anyway. The theory of evolution answers a lot of questions and has been vetted very well. But there are still questions, and scientist are still exploring. When and if new evidence is found, then the theory will be adjusted. That's a good thing about science. It self corrects. Not so much with religion. When new evidence presents itself, most religions, including our own do not accept it. Most of the time it is rejected in a knee jerk sort of way. That's where you get the "god of the gaps" situation where you have grown up people defending silly and completely discounted superstitions like a global flood, a 6000 year old earth, and no death before Adam and Eve (I am aware of the apologetic responses to these things, but for the most part they are contrived and unconvincing., and usually involve throwing a prophet or two under the bus ). As far as your Divine Creation theory goes, it really doesn't explain where life originated from. It just pushes the question back a generation. Fundies say god created life on earth. Well, that is not the origin of life is it? For the theory to work god has to be alive. Where did god come from? Who created him? Fundies will often say god wasn't created. He always existed. Again a cop out. Using that logic I could say life on earth wasn't created, it always existed. TIME, SPACE and MATTER exist only by GOD's will.
sunstoned Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 2 hours ago, LittleNipper said: TIME, SPACE and MATTER exist only by GOD's will. Didn't answer the question.
rodheadlee Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 2 hours ago, LittleNipper said: Colossians 1:16 Everything was created by HIM, everything in heaven and on earth, everything seen and unseen, including all forces and powers, and all rulers and authorities. All things were created by GOD's SON, and everything was made for HIM. Can ALL and EVERYTHING mean anything less? That would depend on the definition of heaven and how many heavens there are. I assume we agree on the definition of earth.
rodheadlee Posted May 11, 2018 Posted May 11, 2018 11 hours ago, LittleNipper said: Colossians 1:16 Everything was created by HIM, everything in heaven and on earth, everything seen and unseen, including all forces and powers, and all rulers and authorities. All things were created by GOD's SON, and everything was made for HIM. Can ALL and EVERYTHING mean anything less? Do you realize there are approximately 60 billion planets in the Milky Way galaxy alone that could support human life out of up to 400 billion planets? Do you know how many galaxies there are in the Universe? 100 to 200 billion is the present estimate.
Recommended Posts