Evidence for God from Science

starhunter wrote: By the way, those are byzantine crosses, also Celtic, and Babylonian. The Catholic church incorporated Paganism, hence it changed God's law re idol worship and deleted it. Daniel 7:25.

It was only a matter of time wasn't it. Everything eventually comes back full circle to the Catholic Church.

Yes it's difficult to wash over centuries of darkness and human abuse. Freedom how costly it is, and how unappreciated by those who have it, and how quickly lost by the ignorant.

The old world was destroyed because it was filled with violence.

What will the ark of escape be this time?

I think the world is more filled with violence now then it was then.

Makes you want to cry doesn't it?

Yes, and makes me want to help others.

RickD wrote:But according to YEC, the sun wasn't even created until the 4th day.

But if you accept the OEC position you have the earth existing for millions of years before the sun was created. How is that possible?

The Bible doesn't say the sun was created on the fourth day.

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
(Genesis 1:14-19 ESV)

It says that on the fourth day God placed lights in the heavens. It doesn't say he created the bodies that produced those lights. It only says that they became visible. If the earth was covered with clouds before this the light from the sun could read the earth but the sun, moon, and stars couldn't be seen.

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... lly-say-2/

Ivellious wrote:

As I see it, most salt in the oceans is from land runoff, so at that time, it was probably much less salty than today. As for fresh and saltwater fish , either could live in fresh water for a time, especially if the oceans did not become so salty for another millennia or two.

I think you missed the point. Water-dwelling creatures require certain conditions as far as salt level, temperature, water pressure, pH, etc. that vary immensely depending on the species and where it has evolved to live. You couldn't just take every type of water animal and plant, put them in a massive body of water with the same conditions throughout, and expect them all to survive for a couple months without any trouble.

And even if every animal at the time of the flood was made to live in freshwater conditions, you have the problem of explaining how everything living in the oceans suddenly changed to being able to survive in salt water. If the oceans went from freshwater a few thousand years ago to quickly becoming extremely salty today, how did the species of water-dwelling organisms all simultaneously rapidly evolve to become saltwater creatures, instead of simply dying off due to the huge change in their environment?

You are not taking three things into account. First, some fish do fine moving between fresh and salt water, and do so several times during their lives. Second, if the oceans before the flood were not very salty, then the addition of more fresh water would not have hurt the fish there. Third, fish back then were healthier and more adaptable than today, the same as all other animals which have been devolving since then.

Ivellious wrote:

As I see it, most salt in the oceans is from land runoff, so at that time, it was probably much less salty than today. As for fresh and saltwater fish , either could live in fresh water for a time, especially if the oceans did not become so salty for another millennia or two.

I think you missed the point. Water-dwelling creatures require certain conditions as far as salt level, temperature, water pressure, pH, etc. that vary immensely depending on the species and where it has evolved to live. You couldn't just take every type of water animal and plant, put them in a massive body of water with the same conditions throughout, and expect them all to survive for a couple months without any trouble.

And even if every animal at the time of the flood was made to live in freshwater conditions, you have the problem of explaining how everything living in the oceans suddenly changed to being able to survive in salt water. If the oceans went from freshwater a few thousand years ago to quickly becoming extremely salty today, how did the species of water-dwelling organisms all simultaneously rapidly evolve to become saltwater creatures, instead of simply dying off due to the huge change in their environment?

Indeed, that is ONE of many issues with a worldwide flood.

PaulSacramento wrote:Water-dwelling creatures require certain conditions as far as salt level, temperature, water pressure, pH, etc. that vary immensely depending on the species and where it has evolved to live.

This is a problem only if these creatures evolved. When God created sea creatures he already knew their descendants would experience a world wide flood and exactly what kind of environment it would experience. They were equipped with the necessary genetic material that would enable their descendants to survive and adapt to the changed conditions after the flood.

theophilus wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Water-dwelling creatures require certain conditions as far as salt level, temperature, water pressure, pH, etc. that vary immensely depending on the species and where it has evolved to live.

This is a problem only if these creatures evolved. When God created sea creatures he already knew their descendants would experience a world wide flood and exactly what kind of environment it would experience. They were equipped with the necessary genetic material that would enable their descendants to survive and adapt to the changed conditions after the flood.

Where does it say that in the bible?

RickD wrote:You have been told again and again, that OEC/PCs do take the bible literally. We do believe it happened the way the bible says. We just interpret the original text differently. Yom has different literal meanings, which has been pointed out to you numerous times before. Yet you keep saying that your YEC interpretation is the only valid interpretation.

I have responded to this post before but after thinking about it I have come to the conclusion that my answer was inadequate.

Yom has different meanings but only one of those meanings is literal. It is literally the time during which the earth rotates once on its axis. The other meanings use it in a figurative sense. When they are used it is clear from their contexts that a literal day isn't intended. Old earth creations believe the creation account speaks of literal days; old earth creationists think the days weren't literal days. This isn't an attack on old earth creationism but simply a description of the difference in our beliefs.

God is omniscient so when he inspired the Bible he knew the present controversy would take place so he interpreted the meaning of the days for us. Each day consisted of an evening and a morning and has a period of light and one of darkness. How many meanings of the word "yom" fit that description? We don't believe our interpretation of the only valid one; we believe God's interpretation is the only valid one.

theophilus wrote:

RickD wrote:You have been told again and again, that OEC/PCs do take the bible literally. We do believe it happened the way the bible says. We just interpret the original text differently. Yom has different literal meanings, which has been pointed out to you numerous times before. Yet you keep saying that your YEC interpretation is the only valid interpretation.

I have responded to this post before but after thinking about it I have come to the conclusion that my answer was inadequate.

Yom has different meanings but only one of those meanings is literal. It is literally the time during which the earth rotates once on its axis. The other meanings use it in a figurative sense. When they are used it is clear from their contexts that a literal day isn't intended. Old earth creations believe the creation account speaks of literal days; old earth creationists think the days weren't literal days. This isn't an attack on old earth creationism but simply a description of the difference in our beliefs.

God is omniscient so when he inspired the Bible he knew the present controversy would take place so he interpreted the meaning of the days for us. Each day consisted of an evening and a morning and has a period of light and one of darkness. How many meanings of the word "yom" fit that description? We don't believe our interpretation of the only valid one; we believe God's interpretation is the only valid one.

Can I ask you this?
Where in Genesis is it stated that these days are SEQUENTIAL?

RickD wrote:You have been told again and again, that OEC/PCs do take the bible literally. We do believe it happened the way the bible says. We just interpret the original text differently. Yom has different literal meanings, which has been pointed out to you numerous times before. Yet you keep saying that your YEC interpretation is the only valid interpretation.

Theophilus wrote:
I have responded to this post before but after thinking about it I have come to the conclusion that my answer was inadequate.

I couldn't agree more.

Yom has different meanings but only one of those meanings is literal. It is literally the time during which the earth rotates once on its axis. The other meanings use it in a figurative sense.

Wrong. Yom has multiple literal meanings. http://sententias.org/2013/11/21/the-me ... in-hebrew/

Old earth creations believe the creation account speaks of literal days; old earth creationists think the days weren't literal days.

Yes, you are correct. Some OECs, Progressive creationists for example, do believe the text speaks of the literal meaning of yom as a long period of time. And, some OECs, certain Theistic Evolutionists for example, believe yom is used figuratively.

Each day consisted of an evening and a morning and has a period of light and one of darkness.

Or, each day bracketed by an evening and morning, simply shows a beginning and ending of that yom.

We don't believe our interpretation of the only valid one; we believe God's interpretation is the only valid one.

That's a crock of crap and you know it. You are saying that your interpretation is God's interpretation.

That's typical from certain dogmatic YECs. In their eyes, their interpretation is equal to scripture. No matter how you want to spin it, your interpretation of yom is nothing more than your interpretation.

Theophilus,

Have not had the time to read your posts, which seem interesting, but have you gone off the thread topic?

There's a thread called is the earth 6000 years old? or something like that.

The time frame we have in regards to the lineages from Adam is where some get that 6K number, the issue with that is that it does NOT address the time frame BEFORE Adam or how long Adam was in the Garden of Eden.