Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:The more I learn the more I'm convinced that YEC came from a lazy way of reading the bible,but yet it is believed to be the true interpretation when they must deny evidence to believe it.It is actually choosing to believe their biblical interpretation by blind faith and faith for a Christian is not blind.I'm not trying to offend anybody but I am convinced more and more the more I learn.The Gap theory is advanced biblical study but you may not realize it until you understand it.

ACB,

I'm not seeing YEC as a lazy way of reading the bible. An educated YEC is very careful to try to understand scripture in its intended meaning. YECs can be just as studious with scripture, as anyone else. As I said before, YECs (in general) are very careful about trying to adhere to scripture.

I did not realize it,until I understood the gap theory.I used to be a young earth creationists and I thought young earth creationism was true,but now I've realized what I do.I'm trying to offend,it is just something I've realized.I keep finding more and more scriptures to back up the GT and it makes me realize how they've been overlooked.Like for instance Job 22:8-11or Job 22:15-16

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:The more I learn the more I'm convinced that YEC came from a lazy way of reading the bible,but yet it is believed to be the true interpretation when they must deny evidence to believe it.It is actually choosing to believe their biblical interpretation by blind faith and faith for a Christian is not blind.I'm not trying to offend anybody but I am convinced more and more the more I learn.The Gap theory is advanced biblical study but you may not realize it until you understand it.

ACB,

I'm not seeing YEC as a lazy way of reading the bible. An educated YEC is very careful to try to understand scripture in its intended meaning. YECs can be just as studious with scripture, as anyone else. As I said before, YECs (in general) are very careful about trying to adhere to scripture.

I did not realize it,until I understood the gap theory.I used to be a young earth creationists and I thought young earth creationism was true,but now I've realized what I do.I'm trying to offend,it is just something I've realized.I keep finding more and more scriptures to back up the GT and it makes me realize how they've been overlooked.

Probably not overlooked. Probably just interpreted differently.

Rick, you are as likely to convince Kenny that moral values are objective as you are to convince ACB that you and other critics of the GT aren't lazy idiots. In his mind, the only way we could possibly reject it is because we don't understand it. Nevermind the fact that people like me know the arguments from Hebrew grammar in favor of the position better than he does. Never mind that we understand time formally studying it and its related demonology. Nevermind that we've formally looked at Isaiah and Ezekiel, and OF COURSE, Peter's comment about the flood. Never mind all that. In his mind, he knows better than all scholars today. What you have is just old fashioned hubris.

And just like I don't write my remarks about Kenny as a subtle way to talk to him about his lunacy--but I'm literally talking to you about talking to Kenny--I'm talking taking a sideways jab I hope ACB will read and respond to. I'm saying this publicly simply because the debate is always so public.

ACB: I will address THIS part to you. You can claim you aren't trying to be offensive. Frankly, I don't know if I believe you, but that's beside the point. The point is that your arguments are offensive. Your constant suggestion that critics of your precious interpretation just don't understand what they are talking about is nothing less than besmirching their intellectual capacity. I am telling you that I understand it, that I disagree with it, that I understand it better than you, and the reason you are in love with it is because you don't know how to read Hebrew. I'm asking you to stop with the nonsense that professional scholars have overlooked or haven't considered or don't understand it. They do. And they reject it in full knowledge, and exactly because of their full knowledge, of what it teaches.

I'm not asking you to stop defending the GT. I don't care what you spend your time posting on. I'm asking you stop with the offensive rhetoric. It used to make you look desperate and foolish. Now it makes you look cultish and mean-spirited. Quit it.

Jac3510 wrote:Rick, you are as likely to convince Kenny that moral values are objective as you are to convince ACB that you and other critics of the GT aren't lazy idiots. In his mind, the only way we could possibly reject it is because we don't understand it. Nevermind the fact that people like me know the arguments from Hebrew grammar in favor of the position better than he does. Never mind that we understand time formally studying it and its related demonology. Nevermind that we've formally looked at Isaiah and Ezekiel, and OF COURSE, Peter's comment about the flood. Never mind all that. In his mind, he knows better than all scholars today. What you have is just old fashioned hubris.

And just like I don't write my remarks about Kenny as a subtle way to talk to him about his lunacy--but I'm literally talking to you about talking to Kenny--I'm talking taking a sideways jab I hope ACB will read and respond to. I'm saying this publicly simply because the debate is always so public.

ACB: I will address THIS part to you. You can claim you aren't trying to be offensive. Frankly, I don't know if I believe you, but that's beside the point. The point is that your arguments are offensive. Your constant suggestion that critics of your precious interpretation just don't understand what they are talking about is nothing less than besmirching their intellectual capacity. I am telling you that I understand it, that I disagree with it, that I understand it better than you, and the reason you are in love with it is because you don't know how to read Hebrew. I'm asking you to stop with the nonsense that professional scholars have overlooked or haven't considered or don't understand it. They do. And they reject it in full knowledge, and exactly because of their full knowledge, of what it teaches.

I'm not asking you to stop defending the GT. I don't care what you spend your time posting on. I'm asking you stop with the offensive rhetoric. It used to make you look desperate and foolish. Now it makes you look cultish and mean-spirited. Quit it.

Jac,I do not mean it to be offensive but I can't control how people take my feelings on it. And me and you have not discussed the Hebrew much but the few times we did,I refuted you biblically,now you may not acknowledge it but I did. And if you truly understood the GT like you say you would not even bring up Hebrew because the GT did not come about from reading the OT and this is what is so frustrating as a GT that those who reject it think they can refute it by bringing up hebrew.,when they can't. The Gap theory came about from reading the new testament which is Greek so you should be bringing up Greek if you're going to refute the GT.Those who reject the GT commonly make up lies about it and teach and spread false things about it and yet GT have refuted it all.

It does not matter of you are a Hebrew scholar you still cannot make Noah's flood fit into 2nd Peter 3:5-6 no matter how much you make it fit into it ignoring what the text clearly says and ignoring the biblical facts about Noah's flood.I have a lot of respect for you but if you can defend YEC biblically then it should not offend you that I feel like the YEC interpretation came about from a lazy way of bible reading and study.

are you kenny?

ACB?

Quick question?

Haven`t you used Genesis to support the gap Theory? Isn`t that in the OT?

Nessa wrote:are you kenny?

No,I'm not Kenny.The only thing that matters to me is the truth of God's word,not my opinion or anybody else's.All I said was that the more and more I learn and study that it makes me feel like the YEC interpretation came about from lazy bible reading and for that,I have offended people? That was not my intention at all and if I offended anybody I apologize however I have reasons for thinking like I do.

Maybe I should give a few reasons why I feel like this.If you have read and studied the bible about Noah's flood and have a good understanding of it then when you read 2nd Peter 3:5-7 you will realize based on what the text says that this cannot be referring to Noah's flood and yet this seems to have got overlooked and because of it people have assumed it is talking about Noah's flood when it is'nt,it is describing a flood much,much worse than Noah's flood and so if you realize this? You ask yourself,if this is not referring to Noah's flood then what flood was it referring to and does the bible mention another flood somewhere that I overlooked?Instead of just thinking it applies to Noah's flood. And if you look for another biblical flood? The only other flood is in Genesis 1:2 and then you realize that Peter is taking us back to Genesis 1, not Noah's flood and you start from Genesis 1.

But another example is another point Peter makes in the new testament in 2nd Peter 3:3-4 where Peter says" Knowing this first,that there shall come in the last days scoffers/mockers walking after their own lusts.And saying,Where is the promise of his coming?For since the fathers fell asleep\died all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

OK so this part right here"for since the fathers died all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." The beginning would mean Genesis 1:1 that all things have gone on continually since Genesis 1:1 so that anybody teaching this in the last days is wrong. And YEC teaches this.
Then Peter says:
For this they willingly are ignorant of,that by the word of God the heavens were of old,and the earth standing out of the water and in the water( Cannot be Noah's flood): Whereby the world at that time perished: ( again not referring to Noah's flood) because the earth was not in and out of the water in Noah's flood like it was in Genesis 1" Peter goes on to say " But the heavens and earth which are now( since Genesis 1:3-31) by the same word are being kept in store,reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and and perdition of ungodly men."

This present heaven and earth we live in now has never ended or stopped including with Noah's flood,this present heaven and earth was the same heaven and earth before and after Noah's flood but yet people make Noah's flood fit into the former flood that caused the former heavens and earth and world to perish which has been overlooked and this world goes on until the day of judgment of fire against day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

So there had to have been a break or a gap between the former world that perished and this world we now live in since Adam and Eve. And this is where the idea of the gap theory came from,not from the OT or Hebrew.2nd Peter 3 reveals 3 different heavens and earths and worlds as we know a new heaven and earth will be made in the future after Jesus's thousand year reign on this earth.

These are just a few examples as I could give more.

Storyteller wrote:ACB?

Quick question?

Haven`t you used Genesis to support the gap Theory? Isn`t that in the OT?

Yes,I have but my point is that the gap theory came from reading the new testament,not the old testament,however after you understand the gap theory as you search more and more you will find more scriptures that backs up the gap theory in both the OT and NT and I'm finding more as I study and read more of the bible.

RickD wrote:There are other signs of a person's age besides just being fully grown. Wrinkles, sun damage, etc. So, If someone who knew what he was looking for, went back in time and examined Adam the same day Adam was created, he would not think Adam got to that point by aging like others who were born.

If the person who examined Adam didn't know he had been created he would see that he lacked some of the signs of aging he wouldn't be likely to recognize their significance but would try to find an explanation for them that was compatible with his belief that Adam had been born and grew up like any other man.

There is scientific evidence that shows the earth can't be as old as is generally believed. In my post I provided a link to the Answers in Genesis site that shows some of that evidence. A scientist whose lifetime education was based on the belief that the earth is old and who had never been taught about the Bible would see that evidence without realizing its significance and would try to interpret it to make it fit with what he already believed. But you believe the Bible is true. Why can't you recognize the evidence that supports it?

theophilus wrote:

RickD wrote:There are other signs of a person's age besides just being fully grown. Wrinkles, sun damage, etc. So, If someone who knew what he was looking for, went back in time and examined Adam the same day Adam was created, he would not think Adam got to that point by aging like others who were born.

If the person who examined Adam didn't know he had been created he would see that he lacked some of the signs of aging he wouldn't be likely to recognize their significance but would try to find an explanation for them that was compatible with his belief that Adam had been born and grew up like any other man.

There is scientific evidence that shows the earth can't be as old as is generally believed. In my post I provided a link to the Answers in Genesis site that shows some of that evidence. A scientist whose lifetime education was based on the belief that the earth is old and who had never been taught about the Bible would see that evidence without realizing its significance and would try to interpret it to make it fit with what he already believed. But you believe the Bible is true. Why can't you recognize the evidence that supports it?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking in the part I underlined. Since I do believe the bible is true, I obviously do recognize the evidence that supports the bible being true. Otherwise, I wouldn't think the bible is true.

Maybe you need to rephrase the question.

I would like to know where the bible says the earth is only 6000 years old,because it does not say it.

theophilus wrote:

RickD wrote:There are other signs of a person's age besides just being fully grown. Wrinkles, sun damage, etc. So, If someone who knew what he was looking for, went back in time and examined Adam the same day Adam was created, he would not think Adam got to that point by aging like others who were born.

If the person who examined Adam didn't know he had been created he would see that he lacked some of the signs of aging he wouldn't be likely to recognize their significance but would try to find an explanation for them that was compatible with his belief that Adam had been born and grew up like any other man.

There is scientific evidence that shows the earth can't be as old as is generally believed. In my post I provided a link to the Answers in Genesis site that shows some of that evidence. A scientist whose lifetime education was based on the belief that the earth is old and who had never been taught about the Bible would see that evidence without realizing its significance and would try to interpret it to make it fit with what he already believed. But you believe the Bible is true. Why can't you recognize the evidence that supports it?

You do know it was Christians who started modern science that discovered the earth is millions of years old,don't you? Why would you reject this evidence that Christians discovered?This was before Charles Darwin too and evolution.,it was later extended out to billions of years old to accomodate evolution,these Christians accepted the earth was not 6000 years old but much much older.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Jac,I do not mean it to be offensive but I can't control how people take my feelings on it.

I'm not asking you to control anyone's feelings. I'm asking you to control your tongue (or your fingers, as the case may be). If you are so foolish and downright prideful as to actually think and believe that people don't comprehend your argument, then keep it to yourself. Regardless, stop accusing people of not understanding the GT. We get it, ACB. And we reject it.

As I said, feel free to talk about it all you want. I don't care. What I do care about is when you start making personal attacks. If it doesn't stop, I'm going to start reporting your posts to moderators.

Jac3510 wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Jac,I do not mean it to be offensive but I can't control how people take my feelings on it.

I'm not asking you to control anyone's feelings. I'm asking you to control your tongue (or your fingers, as the case may be). If you are so foolish and downright prideful as to actually think and believe that people don't comprehend your argument, then keep it to yourself. Regardless, stop accusing people of not understanding the GT. We get it, ACB. And we reject it.

As I said, feel free to talk about it all you want. I don't care. What I do care about is when you start making personal attacks. If it doesn't stop, I'm going to start reporting your posts to moderators.

I'm not prideful,I'm not boastful as I said,I only care about the truth of God's word.I did not mean to offend you or anybody I was just expressing my honest feelings about what I have learned and discovered from studying the bible.I certainly was not trying to attack you and I apologize if you took it that way but bringing up Hebrew is not a way to refute the gap theory and yet you did it for some reason.Gap theorists do not mess with the Hebrew except maybe one word and so when you bring up Hebrew it is not a way to refute it and I have never seen it refuted biblically despite the denials and rejections.

You apologize if I took it that way?!?

THAT is the hubris, ACB. You can't even admit when your direct quotes are inappropriate. My God, how pride blinds . . .

As I said, do whatever you like. Just know that I'm done tolerating your personal attacks. They're getting reported from here on out.