Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe that God created this world we live in 6000 years ago in 6 days. That includes the moon, but not the planet earth itself and the universe, they are created in the beginning (Gen 1:1), another world we do not know much about. That world of old (2.Peter 3:5-7) was destroyed totally by God`s judgement (Gen 1:2) including the moon, if there was one. God will create another world after the Millennium on the old earth. That means there will be 3 generations of the earth, that are 3 different worlds God created on planet earth. The world before us was destroyed by water and this world will be destroyed by fire. That means this planet earth can be billions of years old.
That's all fine and dandy, you're probably not alone in your beliefs. However, I was just saying you probably should not use shoddy science, which has long been known to be fallacious, to bolster your position, ala the "moon-dust" argument. Now that you know the history and details of the claim and why it is fallacious, I certainly wouldn't expect to see you use it again.
Read at the end of each "day" and it says an evening and a morning a ... Day. That is NOT 24 hours. In addition the Biblical Day started at sundown and ended at the next sundown, so 24 hours for a full day.
The creative days are whatever God wanted them to be, as he tells us a thousand years are as a day and a day as a thousand years to him. It was God's time until the creation of Adam and then our time started for us.
Also note Adam was created in the evening and had to name about 16,000 kinds of animals and I doubt God had him go, rabbit, mouse, deer, fox, bear, etc. in the dark. Then within the same "day" (night) God made him go to sleep and made Eve and then brought her to him and he said .... "at last". It wasn't just a few minutes or hours that had passed.
God is not stupid or capricious. He would have Adam come to know the animlas so as to give them meaningful names and that could take literally years. During that time he would see male and female everything and even mating and birth. Makes sense he would wonder "what about me". Then Eve shows up YEAH "AT LAST". Not just a few hours or less than a single day going by.
Now if you want to postulate God did all His creating in daylight, then it was still less than 24 hours because Genesis 1:5 tells us God called only the lighted period "Day", showing the variation in what a "Day" was even then. Adam still had to name some 16,000 kings (basic kinds not the vast number around today as variations of a kind), take a nap and then see Eve. The "at last" would be meaningless if just a few hours had passed.
Evening stands for night and begins at sundown, morning stands for daylight and ends the next sundown, makes 24 hours. If this are years you have a problem with the third day and the fours day. With years between the vegetation created will be destroyed without sun.
That's all fine and dandy, you're probably not alone in your beliefs. However, I was just saying you probably should not use shoddy science, which has long been known to be fallacious, to bolster your position, ala the "moon-dust" argument. Now that you know the history and details of the claim and why it is fallacious, I certainly wouldn't expect to see you use it again.
I do not believe in science and if it makes you happy I will not use it again.
I do not believe in science and if it makes you happy I will not use it again.
But you rely on it every day. You don't believe is science only when it doesn't fit in with your faith -beliefs. That's ok. If you don't want to refer to the matter again, we won't object.
Evolutionary theory is not proven science. It is an ideology. A chain with missing links
is not a chain by any definition. Darwin was funded by agnostics. The ideology of constant
progress was a pervasing motif in the 19th century. It is still a pervasive motif, as are the
nefarious movements of Marx and Freud on economics, government and psychology.
One should never be required to "believe" in a true scientific discovery.
The fruits of science can be sweet or rotten, depending upon how they are employed.
The theory of evolution is not even in that category. It has brought no real scientific
benefit. All technological advancements achieved would have occurred just the same
with or without it.
Status:
"I've got a fightin' side a mile wide but I pray for peace"
(set 20 days ago)
Location: Florida
14,560 posts, read 9,587,526 times
Reputation: 11650
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
If you believe in a god, but do not use that as a reason to reject the 'new truths' of science, then I have no real quarrel with you, so long as you do not tell me that I should believe in a god too, on the grounds of the unknown infinite.
I will never tell anyone what to believe. I can however tell others what I believe and live in such a way that reflects that.
I have no quarrel with you, so long as you do not tell me my belief is wrong.
What I will say is our understanding of the universe can only bring us to the edge of human understanding, therefore keep an open mind to concepts beyond what eyes can see and ears can hear.
Saw this on the news, tracked down the recent Pew Report. This chart sums up the findings, for the religious portion of the study. Why the disparity between groups?
The disparity between groups can be accounted for by the group attention to religious doctrine and teaching as opposed to the lack of it.
At the outset it ought to be recognized that the Darwinian explanation of nature is not a coherent theory of evolution. There are several different categories of evolutionary theory each proving the others wrong. Strictly speaking the secular version of how the natural order came to pass stands on shaky ground. If the experts of science cannot agree amongst themselves, how can the rest of us find agreement with it - or at least something to point at and say this is right or this is wrong?
In groups that focus upon the literal precise interpretation of scripture, fewer accept the secular propagandized version of Darwin's theory. There are several reasons for this.
- The Columbus point of view.
Most protestant groups are sadly lacking in sound Biblical education and doctrine. Instead they wander in a sort of exploratory fashion here and there searching for and landing on subjective opinion rather than sound doctrine. It's a wonder they end up with any consistent ideas at all.
- One is the cyclops point of view.
Only one version is learned, accepted and recognized. Period.
- One is the schizophrenic point of view.
These accept both scientific and scriptural views and have no mental problems with the contradictions.
- One is the faithful point of view.
These folks accept the Biblical doctrine that God caused sudden changes rather than gradual ones, but cannot adequately explain or argue why scripture is right and secular views are wrong.
- One is the logical point of view.
These folks acknowledge that the Bible is an account of the fall of man, God's plan of redemption and little else. If one wants to know about dinosaurs one ought to consult a book on paleontology. If one wants to know about the stars a book on astronomy is appropriate. If one wants to know about history one should consult a work on archaeology. And so on and so forth.
I consider myself among the last group. The Bible talks about God's relationship with man and how it became soiled and later cleansed. It's not about animal husbandry, gardening or trans-oceanic navigation. If you want to know about these things look it up in the appropriate places. The Bible is not about them.
The Bible states that on or about six thousand years ago something happened to corrupt the nature of humanity. It describes the event in terms of a kind of spiritual invasion resulting from a war that began elsewhere and ended up on earth. It basically says that planet earth is now on the front lines of a spiritual war zone. The actual amount of text involved regarding the formation of this planet and its inhabitants is remarkably thin as compared to the amount of space and text devoted to the ensuing battles and war. Consider the implications of this fact.
There are three separate accounts of creation in the Bible with a huge gap of time between the end of creation and the beginning of the story of the fall and redemption of man. It is that story which consumes my attention constantly. The Bible is a book about a very specific type of war.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
- St. Paul in his letter to the Ephesians chapter six verse twelve
I'm not really into debates on theory expressed in the scientific community. Darwin's theory is one of those, along with string theory the nature of mitochrondrial degeneration and so on. The Bible is a war story. Think about it.
It should be the focus of everyone's attention because everyone is on the front lines. God's redemption of man ought to be of concern to everyone personally - not their parentage be it monkey, dolphin or martian meteorite.
and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...
Last edited by Choir Loft; 01-19-2014 at 09:51 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.