Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussing the evidence that support creationism
Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 45 of 301 (433692)
11-12-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Coragyps
11-12-2007 7:05 PM


Re: brief nearly off-topic rant
Even so if God created the stars on that day, then the speed of light would have to be even greater!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Coragyps, posted 11-12-2007 7:05 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Taz, posted 11-12-2007 7:34 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 50 of 301 (433707)
11-12-2007 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by DrJones*
11-12-2007 7:21 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Like I said before, there is no time distiction between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by DrJones*, posted 11-12-2007 7:21 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by DrJones*, posted 11-12-2007 7:33 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 53 of 301 (433713)
11-12-2007 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by dwise1
11-12-2007 7:23 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Every star is made up of hydrogen. Under intense pressure (and, respectively, heat) hydrogen atoms will fuse together to form Helium. This produces an imense amount of energy and heat (it's a wonder why: no matter is lost in the fusion). The sun is the ultamite fusion reactor.
No, the sun wouldn't expand as you go backward in time (or shrink as time goes on), unless the materials become more dense (like lead, iron, gold, etc.) Then, it might go down slightly, before the expansion of the supernova.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 7:23 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 7:50 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 58 of 301 (433733)
11-12-2007 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Jack
11-12-2007 7:24 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
But I don't believe that God created the world with fossils and bones. "The earth was formless AND VOID" There was nothing on the earth at its creation, which meant that the scars, the animals, the fossils, must have been real. The age of the rocks themselves, however, might be younger than they really are. Remember, God can do anything. He can make a young earth look old without lieing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Jack, posted 11-12-2007 7:24 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by subbie, posted 11-12-2007 8:24 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 59 of 301 (433735)
11-12-2007 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Phat
11-12-2007 7:49 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Thank you. I needed that encouragement.
In answer to your question, creationism must be true simply because if it isn't, then the Bible could be counted false (if this is false, why can't that be too?), and if the Bible is false, then we have no hope of salvation. If I have no hope of salvation, then what's the point of life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Phat, posted 11-12-2007 7:49 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Phat, posted 11-12-2007 8:24 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 68 by jar, posted 11-12-2007 8:46 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 71 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 8:56 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 60 of 301 (433737)
11-12-2007 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by dwise1
11-12-2007 7:50 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
If it was written by a scientist, then yes. I respect (as Verne says) lerned people.
Right now, I'm reading up on Fusion. I was pretty sure that no matter was lost, but I'll soon find out....
Okay, matter is lost. That is accountable for the energy gained.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 7:50 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 8:45 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 65 of 301 (433747)
11-12-2007 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Doddy
11-12-2007 8:24 PM


Re: Carbon made me!
True, true. But, if you use carbon because of the outer shell, why not use another element of the same group, like silicon (although not a very carbon-based life from life-giving element)? It would have roughly the same chemical properties, just an extra 'shell' of electrons.
By the way, I'm playing both sides of the equation. If I simply play the creationist side, people will call me ignroant and stupid. So, I make sure that although it supports my theory, that I've thought of other explinations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Doddy, posted 11-12-2007 8:24 PM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Doddy, posted 11-13-2007 7:16 AM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 66 of 301 (433748)
11-12-2007 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Phat
11-12-2007 8:24 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
I don't think I know the whole truth. That's why I joined this. I want to know what others think. I want to weigh the ideas against eachother. I think salvation is based on our hearts, and not if we've broken x amount of laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Phat, posted 11-12-2007 8:24 PM Phat has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 69 of 301 (433753)
11-12-2007 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by jar
11-12-2007 8:46 PM


Re: Still a falsehood.
That message was directed to the sender.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 11-12-2007 8:46 PM jar has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 70 of 301 (433754)
11-12-2007 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by dwise1
11-12-2007 8:45 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Probably, but all of my respect of him would have been lost when I found out the truth. I don't respect liers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 8:45 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 9:04 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 72 of 301 (433756)
11-12-2007 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by dwise1
11-12-2007 8:56 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
I follow what I believe to be in the Bible. I have had enough experiances to trust God to tell me what he means by certain aspects/versus of the Bible when I need them.
By the way, for HTML, you need to use the 'greater-than' or 'lesser-than' symbols, or the effect isn't made. < u > (spaces not included) will produce an underlined word, [u] will not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 8:56 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 9:07 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 74 of 301 (433758)
11-12-2007 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
11-12-2007 7:26 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
No human could ever invent the idea of my God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 11-12-2007 7:26 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 11-12-2007 9:17 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 76 of 301 (433763)
11-12-2007 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by dwise1
11-12-2007 9:04 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
"which Christian deity is it who is to be served by lies and deception?"
None. My God cannot be served by lies. God (and please, when you're talking about Him, capitolize His name. He's not some polytheistic god who's effectiveness is smaller than a blade of grass) is awesome and powerful. He deserves the truth (He knows it all already, there's no point in trying to lie) and all glory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 9:04 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 9:21 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 78 of 301 (433766)
11-12-2007 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by dwise1
11-12-2007 9:07 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
I like studying the Bible for myself.
In HTML, it's the 'greater-than' and 'lesser-than' symbols.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 9:07 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 9:18 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 82 of 301 (433779)
11-12-2007 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by jar
11-12-2007 9:17 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation

"what you need is a model that explains what is seen even better than the conventional model.

"Do not test the Lord your God..." Deut. 6:16.
The truth is, I can't prove that Creation happened. I can't prove anything in the Bible is true. I can't do this any more than you can prove that evolution is true. Nobody can prove anything happened billions, millions, or even tens of thousands of years ago. We can't because we weren't there. We haven't experianced anything. Although evolution isn't considered a religion, I feel it is. Religion is defined as 'a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects' (Religion Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com). Evolutionists believe that we evolved from a differant species just as much as creationists believe we were created.
To put it truthfully, I had made this topic to 'Dicuss' the evidence that 'supports' creationism, not proves it. You can't prove evolution, and I can't prove creation. We're stuck with two unprovable topics, and we're fighting over them! What's the point? You say 'a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, and k are true, giving lots of evidence to my cause, now prove yours.' I say, 'I can say that q, r, and s might be true, but I still believe that my cause is right.' You say, 'you didn't prove yours.' But, you never proved yours either. Neither of us can prove our cause because they are unprovable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 11-12-2007 9:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Taz, posted 11-12-2007 9:45 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 85 by jar, posted 11-12-2007 9:50 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 99 by Doddy, posted 11-13-2007 7:29 AM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024