 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
Ventureforth |
| sheepdogandy wrote: | In the video, Hovind puts forth his argument for a young universe.
He believes in a six thousand year creation and the flood occurring about four thousand years ago.
Compelling and humorous presentation.
 |
I've seen a few of Hovind's videos including the one you linked. I'll have to admit he is entertaining and he does make some good points. I wouldn't run with his points until I checked them out though. And a couple of the things I really don't particularly agree with him on are that he is KJV only and I'm guessing his approach in commenting on opposing positions doesn't win him much serious consideration by those holding them (not sure Hovind cares though). Some of the scripture he uses only back up his assertions in the KJV. As far as his comments, he routinely calls evolution "stupid."
As for me, I am still not seeing enough support in scripture for an old earth. I may be wrong and a young earth may not be what God is saying, but I need to see better arguments from scripture before I move in into the old earth camp. |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
6/5/16 6:35 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Cojak |
Well I am going with the 'Old Earth' myself.
Much older than Jlarry, by a few million years! HAPPY BIRTHDAY JLARRY and the earth (probably the 903,816,472.5th one) 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
6/5/16 10:08 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Methocostal |
I must admit that I lean to "old earth" and that God was speaking in terms of "ages" or periods, rather than literal days. However, I also believe God could have done it 6 literal days as well.
I saw an interesting TV show recently on Christian TV (can't remember the name) where the pastor was interviewing an Astronomer. The professor said that when he visited MIT (I think it was) all 13 Astronomers were born again Christians and that it is very common for Astronomers to be Christian. His basic premise was that, with telescopes, we are able to look to the time of creation and can see the separation of light and dark as noted in the Bible. He indicated that most people believe virtually all scientists are atheists because of the prevelance of Biologists (which far exceed the number of Astronomers) are atheists. He said the primary reason for that is the Biologists are primarily examining the 7th day and do not see the origins of the Universe from the beginning as Astromers. Though he never stated it explicitly, I believe this particular professor was likely an "old earth" believer. Another interesting sidebar to the discussion was that he said the Scientific Method was outlined in Proverbs!
I believe God explained it in terms we could understand as in days, versus vast periods of billions of years. However, God could certainly speed up the process if he so chose.
Even according to Big Bang proponents, the vast majority of the Universe (or Universe's I suppose) were created in the first nanoseconds from the Big Bang. If God could do that in nanosecond (and I think the actual timespan is much quicker than the nanosecond I mentioned), he could certainly do everything else in 6 days. That said, I still lean to a multi billion year creation.
The most important concept is "God created"..... nufh said  Well, that is what God said when he was writing the King James Version Bible |
Friendly Face
Posts: 496
6/8/16 1:26 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Eddie Robbins |
| Here it is.....none of us know. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
6/8/16 3:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
sheepdogandy |
Did you watch the video?
What are you afraid of? 
_________________
Charles A. Hutchins
Senior Pastor SPWC
Congregational Church of God
www.spwc.church |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 7307
6/8/16 5:54 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Eddie Robbins |
| sheepdogandy wrote: | Did you watch the video?
What are you afraid of? |
Afraid of wasting my time. 😂😂😂 |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
6/8/16 6:50 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Ventureforth |
| Methocostal wrote: | I must admit that I lean to "old earth" and that God was speaking in terms of "ages" or periods, rather than literal days. However, I also believe God could have done it 6 literal days as well.
I saw an interesting TV show recently on Christian TV (can't remember the name) where the pastor was interviewing an Astronomer. The professor said that when he visited MIT (I think it was) all 13 Astronomers were born again Christians and that it is very common for Astronomers to be Christian. His basic premise was that, with telescopes, we are able to look to the time of creation and can see the separation of light and dark as noted in the Bible. He indicated that most people believe virtually all scientists are atheists because of the prevelance of Biologists (which far exceed the number of Astronomers) are atheists. He said the primary reason for that is the Biologists are primarily examining the 7th day and do not see the origins of the Universe from the beginning as Astromers. Though he never stated it explicitly, I believe this particular professor was likely an "old earth" believer. Another interesting sidebar to the discussion was that he said the Scientific Method was outlined in Proverbs!
I believe God explained it in terms we could understand as in days, versus vast periods of billions of years. However, God could certainly speed up the process if he so chose.
Even according to Big Bang proponents, the vast majority of the Universe (or Universe's I suppose) were created in the first nanoseconds from the Big Bang. If God could do that in nanosecond (and I think the actual timespan is much quicker than the nanosecond I mentioned), he could certainly do everything else in 6 days. That said, I still lean to a multi billion year creation.
The most important concept is "God created"..... nufh said Well, that is what God said when he was writing the King James Version Bible |
I would be open to hearing arguments that persuaded you to lean old earth.
One thing that sticks in my mind that is not necessarily my best argument for my position but still makes me question. Why does God who spoke the earth into existence need millions or billions of years to create the earth? 6 days? He could do it in 6 seconds if he wanted. If He spoke the world into existence He must speak really slowly. (joke)
Another thing is perhaps a stronger argument in my opinion. The phrase "And there was evening and there was morning, the ___ day" God said it several times so apparently He was really trying to get something across to us.
I have to say that I am concerned that the secular scientific community persuades many to interpret the evidence more and more from a worldly and purely naturalistic perspective. |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
6/8/16 10:32 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| While I affirm a young earth, that doesn't require me to affirm that the earth could have been without form and void (Gen. 1:2) for a very long time prior to the first day, when God separated the light from the darkness in Gen. 1:3-5. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
6/8/16 11:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
sheepdogandy |
Some folks are set in their opinions and don't care to even listen to another view.
Eh Eddie.
_________________
Charles A. Hutchins
Senior Pastor SPWC
Congregational Church of God
www.spwc.church |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 7307
6/9/16 7:56 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Methocostal |
I actually agree with what you said. I think God could have done it in 6 seconds if he chose as well. But, by the same concept, why take 6 literal days if he could have done it in 6 seconds or 1/6 of a nanosecond.
I'm not a scientist, but I would say that my "evidence" would be essentially regarding the speed of light. If light travels 168,000 miles per second (if I recall correctly) and the light we are seeing now from the distant galaxies took billions of years to arrive, then that would "seem" to contradict a 6 day creation. To me, that further expands my appreciation (faith) on God's almighty power that HE created this incrediably vast universe in an intelligent manner.
The fallacy of my logic (or scientists logic) is if the current speed of light is not consistent with what the speed of light was 6 thousand years ago (per 6 day creation thoughts), then reading the speed of light today is not an accurate measure of what happened at creation. That is, light may have traveled 6 billion miles per second at creation and has slowed to 168K today. Or, their calculations are incorrect today that it is 168K per second. Frankly, I can't conceive how they manage to arrive at that number as how in the world can you calculate such an incredible speed.
I don't think I said it was a definite "old earth" reality, rather that I leaned that way. I absolutely agree God could have created it instantly rather than needing to take billions of years. God is not bound by our scientific "evidence" as he created the science behind the evidence. However, I do believe science can show the incredible power of God as evidenced by His creation. After all, doesn't the Bible itself say that the stars are evidence of his majesty or something to that effect
The point as I said initially is "God Created" not that two rocks (or atoms) looked at each other liked what they saw and from that we evolved Regarding evolution, I really do not lean to the evolutionist view that we evolved from a lower species (jokingly Monkeys), which also evolved from lower life forms (ancient "ooze"), etc. However, God could have chosen to use evolution, if HE chose. He is God, He can do what He chooses. But, I don't think he needed to "practice" to get us created But, I don't limit God either way. However, I think the Biblical support for direct creation of man is much more clear than the possible vagueness of Genesis in regards to the time to create the universe. That is, in my mind, the probability that God chose to "evolve" ancient "ooze" to ultimately be man is infinitesimally smaller than that he used the dust of the earth as the Bible says. On the other hand, why did he use the dust of the earth that he created initially to create man. He could have just spoke man into existence, if so chose. Likewise, he could chosen to evolve man from the ooze if he so chose. I personally think he chose to make man from dust to make man feel a relationship to the earth, but that is pure conjecture. The point is "God created" and he created man with a soul.
We can overthink or oversimplify God's creation. The real crux is that God created and however He chose to create was His choice and it is so far beyond our little minds to conceive that He must be laughing at our attempts to explain it. It is like an atom trying to explain the universe for man to try to explain God.
| Ventureforth wrote: | | Methocostal wrote: | I must admit that I lean to "old earth" and that God was speaking in terms of "ages" or periods, rather than literal days. However, I also believe God could have done it 6 literal days as well.
I saw an interesting TV show recently on Christian TV (can't remember the name) where the pastor was interviewing an Astronomer. The professor said that when he visited MIT (I think it was) all 13 Astronomers were born again Christians and that it is very common for Astronomers to be Christian. His basic premise was that, with telescopes, we are able to look to the time of creation and can see the separation of light and dark as noted in the Bible. He indicated that most people believe virtually all scientists are atheists because of the prevelance of Biologists (which far exceed the number of Astronomers) are atheists. He said the primary reason for that is the Biologists are primarily examining the 7th day and do not see the origins of the Universe from the beginning as Astromers. Though he never stated it explicitly, I believe this particular professor was likely an "old earth" believer. Another interesting sidebar to the discussion was that he said the Scientific Method was outlined in Proverbs!
I believe God explained it in terms we could understand as in days, versus vast periods of billions of years. However, God could certainly speed up the process if he so chose.
Even according to Big Bang proponents, the vast majority of the Universe (or Universe's I suppose) were created in the first nanoseconds from the Big Bang. If God could do that in nanosecond (and I think the actual timespan is much quicker than the nanosecond I mentioned), he could certainly do everything else in 6 days. That said, I still lean to a multi billion year creation.
The most important concept is "God created"..... nufh said Well, that is what God said when he was writing the King James Version Bible |
I would be open to hearing arguments that persuaded you to lean old earth.
One thing that sticks in my mind that is not necessarily my best argument for my position but still makes me question. Why does God who spoke the earth into existence need millions or billions of years to create the earth? 6 days? He could do it in 6 seconds if he wanted. If He spoke the world into existence He must speak really slowly. (joke)
Another thing is perhaps a stronger argument in my opinion. The phrase "And there was evening and there was morning, the ___ day" God said it several times so apparently He was really trying to get something across to us.
I have to say that I am concerned that the secular scientific community persuades many to interpret the evidence more and more from a worldly and purely naturalistic perspective. |
|
Friendly Face
Posts: 496
6/9/16 8:53 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Ventureforth |
| Methocostal wrote: | I actually agree with what you said. I think God could have done it in 6 seconds if he chose as well. But, by the same concept, why take 6 literal days if he could have done it in 6 seconds or 1/6 of a nanosecond.
I'm not a scientist, but I would say that my "evidence" would be essentially regarding the speed of light. If light travels 168,000 miles per second (if I recall correctly) and the light we are seeing now from the distant galaxies took billions of years to arrive, then that would "seem" to contradict a 6 day creation. To me, that further expands my appreciation (faith) on God's almighty power that HE created this incrediably vast universe in an intelligent manner.
The fallacy of my logic (or scientists logic) is if the current speed of light is not consistent with what the speed of light was 6 thousand years ago (per 6 day creation thoughts), then reading the speed of light today is not an accurate measure of what happened at creation. That is, light may have traveled 6 billion miles per second at creation and has slowed to 168K today. Or, their calculations are incorrect today that it is 168K per second. Frankly, I can't conceive how they manage to arrive at that number as how in the world can you calculate such an incredible speed.
I don't think I said it was a definite "old earth" reality, rather that I leaned that way. I absolutely agree God could have created it instantly rather than needing to take billions of years. God is not bound by our scientific "evidence" as he created the science behind the evidence. However, I do believe science can show the incredible power of God as evidenced by His creation. After all, doesn't the Bible itself say that the stars are evidence of his majesty or something to that effect
The point as I said initially is "God Created" not that two rocks (or atoms) looked at each other liked what they saw and from that we evolved Regarding evolution, I really do not lean to the evolutionist view that we evolved from a lower species (jokingly Monkeys), which also evolved from lower life forms (ancient "ooze"), etc. However, God could have chosen to use evolution, if HE chose. He is God, He can do what He chooses. But, I don't think he needed to "practice" to get us created But, I don't limit God either way. However, I think the Biblical support for direct creation of man is much more clear than the possible vagueness of Genesis in regards to the time to create the universe. That is, in my mind, the probability that God chose to "evolve" ancient "ooze" to ultimately be man is infinitesimally smaller than that he used the dust of the earth as the Bible says. On the other hand, why did he use the dust of the earth that he created initially to create man. He could have just spoke man into existence, if so chose. Likewise, he could chosen to evolve man from the ooze if he so chose. I personally think he chose to make man from dust to make man feel a relationship to the earth, but that is pure conjecture. The point is "God created" and he created man with a soul.
We can overthink or oversimplify God's creation. The real crux is that God created and however He chose to create was His choice and it is so far beyond our little minds to conceive that He must be laughing at our attempts to explain it. It is like an atom trying to explain the universe for man to try to explain God.
| Ventureforth wrote: | | Methocostal wrote: | I must admit that I lean to "old earth" and that God was speaking in terms of "ages" or periods, rather than literal days. However, I also believe God could have done it 6 literal days as well.
I saw an interesting TV show recently on Christian TV (can't remember the name) where the pastor was interviewing an Astronomer. The professor said that when he visited MIT (I think it was) all 13 Astronomers were born again Christians and that it is very common for Astronomers to be Christian. His basic premise was that, with telescopes, we are able to look to the time of creation and can see the separation of light and dark as noted in the Bible. He indicated that most people believe virtually all scientists are atheists because of the prevelance of Biologists (which far exceed the number of Astronomers) are atheists. He said the primary reason for that is the Biologists are primarily examining the 7th day and do not see the origins of the Universe from the beginning as Astromers. Though he never stated it explicitly, I believe this particular professor was likely an "old earth" believer. Another interesting sidebar to the discussion was that he said the Scientific Method was outlined in Proverbs!
I believe God explained it in terms we could understand as in days, versus vast periods of billions of years. However, God could certainly speed up the process if he so chose.
Even according to Big Bang proponents, the vast majority of the Universe (or Universe's I suppose) were created in the first nanoseconds from the Big Bang. If God could do that in nanosecond (and I think the actual timespan is much quicker than the nanosecond I mentioned), he could certainly do everything else in 6 days. That said, I still lean to a multi billion year creation.
The most important concept is "God created"..... nufh said Well, that is what God said when he was writing the King James Version Bible |
I would be open to hearing arguments that persuaded you to lean old earth.
One thing that sticks in my mind that is not necessarily my best argument for my position but still makes me question. Why does God who spoke the earth into existence need millions or billions of years to create the earth? 6 days? He could do it in 6 seconds if he wanted. If He spoke the world into existence He must speak really slowly. (joke)
Another thing is perhaps a stronger argument in my opinion. The phrase "And there was evening and there was morning, the ___ day" God said it several times so apparently He was really trying to get something across to us.
I have to say that I am concerned that the secular scientific community persuades many to interpret the evidence more and more from a worldly and purely naturalistic perspective. |
|
Yeah, like I mentioned in my first point, it was not necessarily my strongest argument because God can create any way He chooses, as you have suggested. But we need to keep in mind He never contradicts Himself. Moe later. |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
6/9/16 9:23 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Methocostal |
I agree:)
I don't have a Bible with me, but does it refer to the evening and morning before he made day and night? If so, how could there be evening and morning if there was no separation between the two?
If so, that further makes me think he was speaking metaphorically in terms we could understand, ESPECIALLY, for the people that were on earth before the invention of telescopes.
But, I am unequivocally not saying it took billions of years, rather, I think God was simply explaining in an easier way to understand. I think it was actually periods (era's) etc, rather than 24 hour days as we know today, but who knows
1/6 of a nanosecond, 6 days, 6 billion years, either way, God is so far beyond our comprehension that it just shows his majesty, intelligence and power.
| Ventureforth wrote: | | Methocostal wrote: | I actually agree with what you said. I think God could have done it in 6 seconds if he chose as well. But, by the same concept, why take 6 literal days if he could have done it in 6 seconds or 1/6 of a nanosecond.
I'm not a scientist, but I would say that my "evidence" would be essentially regarding the speed of light. If light travels 168,000 miles per second (if I recall correctly) and the light we are seeing now from the distant galaxies took billions of years to arrive, then that would "seem" to contradict a 6 day creation. To me, that further expands my appreciation (faith) on God's almighty power that HE created this incrediably vast universe in an intelligent manner.
The fallacy of my logic (or scientists logic) is if the current speed of light is not consistent with what the speed of light was 6 thousand years ago (per 6 day creation thoughts), then reading the speed of light today is not an accurate measure of what happened at creation. That is, light may have traveled 6 billion miles per second at creation and has slowed to 168K today. Or, their calculations are incorrect today that it is 168K per second. Frankly, I can't conceive how they manage to arrive at that number as how in the world can you calculate such an incredible speed.
I don't think I said it was a definite "old earth" reality, rather that I leaned that way. I absolutely agree God could have created it instantly rather than needing to take billions of years. God is not bound by our scientific "evidence" as he created the science behind the evidence. However, I do believe science can show the incredible power of God as evidenced by His creation. After all, doesn't the Bible itself say that the stars are evidence of his majesty or something to that effect
The point as I said initially is "God Created" not that two rocks (or atoms) looked at each other liked what they saw and from that we evolved Regarding evolution, I really do not lean to the evolutionist view that we evolved from a lower species (jokingly Monkeys), which also evolved from lower life forms (ancient "ooze"), etc. However, God could have chosen to use evolution, if HE chose. He is God, He can do what He chooses. But, I don't think he needed to "practice" to get us created But, I don't limit God either way. However, I think the Biblical support for direct creation of man is much more clear than the possible vagueness of Genesis in regards to the time to create the universe. That is, in my mind, the probability that God chose to "evolve" ancient "ooze" to ultimately be man is infinitesimally smaller than that he used the dust of the earth as the Bible says. On the other hand, why did he use the dust of the earth that he created initially to create man. He could have just spoke man into existence, if so chose. Likewise, he could chosen to evolve man from the ooze if he so chose. I personally think he chose to make man from dust to make man feel a relationship to the earth, but that is pure conjecture. The point is "God created" and he created man with a soul.
We can overthink or oversimplify God's creation. The real crux is that God created and however He chose to create was His choice and it is so far beyond our little minds to conceive that He must be laughing at our attempts to explain it. It is like an atom trying to explain the universe for man to try to explain God.
| Ventureforth wrote: | | Methocostal wrote: | I must admit that I lean to "old earth" and that God was speaking in terms of "ages" or periods, rather than literal days. However, I also believe God could have done it 6 literal days as well.
I saw an interesting TV show recently on Christian TV (can't remember the name) where the pastor was interviewing an Astronomer. The professor said that when he visited MIT (I think it was) all 13 Astronomers were born again Christians and that it is very common for Astronomers to be Christian. His basic premise was that, with telescopes, we are able to look to the time of creation and can see the separation of light and dark as noted in the Bible. He indicated that most people believe virtually all scientists are atheists because of the prevelance of Biologists (which far exceed the number of Astronomers) are atheists. He said the primary reason for that is the Biologists are primarily examining the 7th day and do not see the origins of the Universe from the beginning as Astromers. Though he never stated it explicitly, I believe this particular professor was likely an "old earth" believer. Another interesting sidebar to the discussion was that he said the Scientific Method was outlined in Proverbs!
I believe God explained it in terms we could understand as in days, versus vast periods of billions of years. However, God could certainly speed up the process if he so chose.
Even according to Big Bang proponents, the vast majority of the Universe (or Universe's I suppose) were created in the first nanoseconds from the Big Bang. If God could do that in nanosecond (and I think the actual timespan is much quicker than the nanosecond I mentioned), he could certainly do everything else in 6 days. That said, I still lean to a multi billion year creation.
The most important concept is "God created"..... nufh said Well, that is what God said when he was writing the King James Version Bible |
I would be open to hearing arguments that persuaded you to lean old earth.
One thing that sticks in my mind that is not necessarily my best argument for my position but still makes me question. Why does God who spoke the earth into existence need millions or billions of years to create the earth? 6 days? He could do it in 6 seconds if he wanted. If He spoke the world into existence He must speak really slowly. (joke)
Another thing is perhaps a stronger argument in my opinion. The phrase "And there was evening and there was morning, the ___ day" God said it several times so apparently He was really trying to get something across to us.
I have to say that I am concerned that the secular scientific community persuades many to interpret the evidence more and more from a worldly and purely naturalistic perspective. |
|
Yeah, like I mentioned in my first point, it was not necessarily my strongest argument because God can create any way He chooses, as you have suggested. But we need to keep in mind He never contradicts Himself. Moe later. |
|
Friendly Face
Posts: 496
6/9/16 9:29 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
UncleJD |
| I don't know where I stand on old-earth, but I see room for it in the Genesis 1 creation vs. the Genesis 2 creation. Its possible that we see man and woman and their offspring in Genesis 1 outside of the Garden in chapter 1 (accounting for Cane's wife), and then see Adam as a special creation, set apart from the rest in chapter 2 from which all mankind will eventually be descended from (via the flood). Notice the order of creation in chapter 1 is plants, animals, man; in chapter 2 its man, plants, animals indicating either an extreme contradiction from the very first chapters of the Bible, or an indication of cataclysm and re-creation. (I'm not sure about all of that, just throwing it out there) That does not conflict with the NT claim that sin entered through Adam since Adam was given the first law of God and all of us descend from him via the flood. I think Genesis's creation account, especially chapter 2 on, is largely a Jewish account of why the Jewish people are special on the earth. Its also an account of the bloodline of Christ. The timeline is not of primary importance. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3147
6/9/16 9:53 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Ventureforth |
| Methocostal wrote: | I agree:)
I don't have a Bible with me, but does it refer to the evening and morning before he made day and night? If so, how could there be evening and morning if there was no separation between the two?
If so, that further makes me think he was speaking metaphorically in terms we could understand, ESPECIALLY, for the people that were on earth before the invention of telescopes.
But, I am unequivocally not saying it took billions of years, rather, I think God was simply explaining in an easier way to understand. I think it was actually periods (era's) etc, rather than 24 hour days as we know today, but who knows
1/6 of a nanosecond, 6 days, 6 billion years, either way, God is so far beyond our comprehension that it just shows his majesty, intelligence and power.
| Ventureforth wrote: | | Methocostal wrote: | I actually agree with what you said. I think God could have done it in 6 seconds if he chose as well. But, by the same concept, why take 6 literal days if he could have done it in 6 seconds or 1/6 of a nanosecond.
I'm not a scientist, but I would say that my "evidence" would be essentially regarding the speed of light. If light travels 168,000 miles per second (if I recall correctly) and the light we are seeing now from the distant galaxies took billions of years to arrive, then that would "seem" to contradict a 6 day creation. To me, that further expands my appreciation (faith) on God's almighty power that HE created this incrediably vast universe in an intelligent manner.
The fallacy of my logic (or scientists logic) is if the current speed of light is not consistent with what the speed of light was 6 thousand years ago (per 6 day creation thoughts), then reading the speed of light today is not an accurate measure of what happened at creation. That is, light may have traveled 6 billion miles per second at creation and has slowed to 168K today. Or, their calculations are incorrect today that it is 168K per second. Frankly, I can't conceive how they manage to arrive at that number as how in the world can you calculate such an incredible speed.
I don't think I said it was a definite "old earth" reality, rather that I leaned that way. I absolutely agree God could have created it instantly rather than needing to take billions of years. God is not bound by our scientific "evidence" as he created the science behind the evidence. However, I do believe science can show the incredible power of God as evidenced by His creation. After all, doesn't the Bible itself say that the stars are evidence of his majesty or something to that effect
The point as I said initially is "God Created" not that two rocks (or atoms) looked at each other liked what they saw and from that we evolved Regarding evolution, I really do not lean to the evolutionist view that we evolved from a lower species (jokingly Monkeys), which also evolved from lower life forms (ancient "ooze"), etc. However, God could have chosen to use evolution, if HE chose. He is God, He can do what He chooses. But, I don't think he needed to "practice" to get us created But, I don't limit God either way. However, I think the Biblical support for direct creation of man is much more clear than the possible vagueness of Genesis in regards to the time to create the universe. That is, in my mind, the probability that God chose to "evolve" ancient "ooze" to ultimately be man is infinitesimally smaller than that he used the dust of the earth as the Bible says. On the other hand, why did he use the dust of the earth that he created initially to create man. He could have just spoke man into existence, if so chose. Likewise, he could chosen to evolve man from the ooze if he so chose. I personally think he chose to make man from dust to make man feel a relationship to the earth, but that is pure conjecture. The point is "God created" and he created man with a soul.
We can overthink or oversimplify God's creation. The real crux is that God created and however He chose to create was His choice and it is so far beyond our little minds to conceive that He must be laughing at our attempts to explain it. It is like an atom trying to explain the universe for man to try to explain God.
| Ventureforth wrote: | | Methocostal wrote: | I must admit that I lean to "old earth" and that God was speaking in terms of "ages" or periods, rather than literal days. However, I also believe God could have done it 6 literal days as well.
I saw an interesting TV show recently on Christian TV (can't remember the name) where the pastor was interviewing an Astronomer. The professor said that when he visited MIT (I think it was) all 13 Astronomers were born again Christians and that it is very common for Astronomers to be Christian. His basic premise was that, with telescopes, we are able to look to the time of creation and can see the separation of light and dark as noted in the Bible. He indicated that most people believe virtually all scientists are atheists because of the prevelance of Biologists (which far exceed the number of Astronomers) are atheists. He said the primary reason for that is the Biologists are primarily examining the 7th day and do not see the origins of the Universe from the beginning as Astromers. Though he never stated it explicitly, I believe this particular professor was likely an "old earth" believer. Another interesting sidebar to the discussion was that he said the Scientific Method was outlined in Proverbs!
I believe God explained it in terms we could understand as in days, versus vast periods of billions of years. However, God could certainly speed up the process if he so chose.
Even according to Big Bang proponents, the vast majority of the Universe (or Universe's I suppose) were created in the first nanoseconds from the Big Bang. If God could do that in nanosecond (and I think the actual timespan is much quicker than the nanosecond I mentioned), he could certainly do everything else in 6 days. That said, I still lean to a multi billion year creation.
The most important concept is "God created"..... nufh said Well, that is what God said when he was writing the King James Version Bible |
I would be open to hearing arguments that persuaded you to lean old earth.
One thing that sticks in my mind that is not necessarily my best argument for my position but still makes me question. Why does God who spoke the earth into existence need millions or billions of years to create the earth? 6 days? He could do it in 6 seconds if he wanted. If He spoke the world into existence He must speak really slowly. (joke)
Another thing is perhaps a stronger argument in my opinion. The phrase "And there was evening and there was morning, the ___ day" God said it several times so apparently He was really trying to get something across to us.
I have to say that I am concerned that the secular scientific community persuades many to interpret the evidence more and more from a worldly and purely naturalistic perspective. |
|
Yeah, like I mentioned in my first point, it was not necessarily my strongest argument because God can create any way He chooses, as you have suggested. But we need to keep in mind He never contradicts Himself. More later. |
|
| Quote: | | 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. |
However, there are differing views as to what the light was.
Anyway, I am familiar with the distant starlight issue. I don't pretend to have all the answers either. In fact, I'm sure there is a lot of things about creation I understand. However, there are some proposals that look promising to me.
Here is a good summation of them from Dr. Jason Lisle:
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/does-distant-starlight-prove-the-universe-is-old/
The one I find the most intriguing is the one by Dr. Russell Humphreys called "time dilation." But from what I've read, he still has a few kinks to straighten out with his theory.
On the other hand, we shouldn't be lead into thinking that secular scientists don't have unanswered questions about their theories.
Macro Darwinian evolution is the theory that I don't agree with.
I was thinking suppose I get to heaven and it turns out it was "an old world after all." So what?
Great discussion! |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
6/9/16 10:27 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Ventureforth |
Methocostal |
Thank you. I will try to remember to go to the link you provided. I certainly don't have the answers either
Yes, if I get to heaven and find out it really was six days, so what Good point.
We agree on the most critical issue and that is, "God created" , how it came to be is just the details |
Friendly Face
Posts: 496
6/9/16 10:53 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Eddie Robbins |
| sheepdogandy wrote: | Some folks are set in their opinions and don't care to even listen to another view.
Eh Eddie. |
Will you read "The Fire that Consumes" by Dr Edward Fudge? If so, I'll watch the video.
BTW, there are lots of Christian videos concerning a flat earth. Would you be open to that idea? |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
6/9/16 11:53 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Methocostal |
Eddie, "flat earth"? Obviously, you have not visited Kansas lately
| Eddie Robbins wrote: | | sheepdogandy wrote: | Some folks are set in their opinions and don't care to even listen to another view.
Eh Eddie. |
Will you read "The Fire that Consumes" by Dr Edward Fudge? If so, I'll watch the video.
BTW, there are lots of Christian videos concerning a flat earth. Would you be open to that idea? |
|
Friendly Face
Posts: 496
6/9/16 12:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
sheepdogandy |
| Eddie Robbins wrote: | | sheepdogandy wrote: | Some folks are set in their opinions and don't care to even listen to another view.
Eh Eddie. |
Will you read "The Fire that Consumes" by Dr Edward Fudge? If so, I'll watch the video.
BTW, there are lots of Christian videos concerning a flat earth. Would you be open to that idea? |
Sure give me a link.
_________________
Charles A. Hutchins
Senior Pastor SPWC
Congregational Church of God
www.spwc.church |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 7307
6/9/16 10:11 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Eddie Robbins |
| Amazon |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
6/10/16 5:40 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Methocostal |
I finally got around to scanning the article you reference. Interesting. Also interesting as it posed the question as to whether the current speed of light was equal to the original speed of light.
I had never considered the heat of the universe or the time space problems of the old universe theories.
Thanks for the link, I will read more!
| Ventureforth wrote: | | Methocostal wrote: | I agree:)
I don't have a Bible with me, but does it refer to the evening and morning before he made day and night? If so, how could there be evening and morning if there was no separation between the two?
If so, that further makes me think he was speaking metaphorically in terms we could understand, ESPECIALLY, for the people that were on earth before the invention of telescopes.
But, I am unequivocally not saying it took billions of years, rather, I think God was simply explaining in an easier way to understand. I think it was actually periods (era's) etc, rather than 24 hour days as we know today, but who knows
1/6 of a nanosecond, 6 days, 6 billion years, either way, God is so far beyond our comprehension that it just shows his majesty, intelligence and power.
| Ventureforth wrote: | | Methocostal wrote: | I actually agree with what you said. I think God could have done it in 6 seconds if he chose as well. But, by the same concept, why take 6 literal days if he could have done it in 6 seconds or 1/6 of a nanosecond.
I'm not a scientist, but I would say that my "evidence" would be essentially regarding the speed of light. If light travels 168,000 miles per second (if I recall correctly) and the light we are seeing now from the distant galaxies took billions of years to arrive, then that would "seem" to contradict a 6 day creation. To me, that further expands my appreciation (faith) on God's almighty power that HE created this incrediably vast universe in an intelligent manner.
The fallacy of my logic (or scientists logic) is if the current speed of light is not consistent with what the speed of light was 6 thousand years ago (per 6 day creation thoughts), then reading the speed of light today is not an accurate measure of what happened at creation. That is, light may have traveled 6 billion miles per second at creation and has slowed to 168K today. Or, their calculations are incorrect today that it is 168K per second. Frankly, I can't conceive how they manage to arrive at that number as how in the world can you calculate such an incredible speed.
I don't think I said it was a definite "old earth" reality, rather that I leaned that way. I absolutely agree God could have created it instantly rather than needing to take billions of years. God is not bound by our scientific "evidence" as he created the science behind the evidence. However, I do believe science can show the incredible power of God as evidenced by His creation. After all, doesn't the Bible itself say that the stars are evidence of his majesty or something to that effect
The point as I said initially is "God Created" not that two rocks (or atoms) looked at each other liked what they saw and from that we evolved Regarding evolution, I really do not lean to the evolutionist view that we evolved from a lower species (jokingly Monkeys), which also evolved from lower life forms (ancient "ooze"), etc. However, God could have chosen to use evolution, if HE chose. He is God, He can do what He chooses. But, I don't think he needed to "practice" to get us created But, I don't limit God either way. However, I think the Biblical support for direct creation of man is much more clear than the possible vagueness of Genesis in regards to the time to create the universe. That is, in my mind, the probability that God chose to "evolve" ancient "ooze" to ultimately be man is infinitesimally smaller than that he used the dust of the earth as the Bible says. On the other hand, why did he use the dust of the earth that he created initially to create man. He could have just spoke man into existence, if so chose. Likewise, he could chosen to evolve man from the ooze if he so chose. I personally think he chose to make man from dust to make man feel a relationship to the earth, but that is pure conjecture. The point is "God created" and he created man with a soul.
We can overthink or oversimplify God's creation. The real crux is that God created and however He chose to create was His choice and it is so far beyond our little minds to conceive that He must be laughing at our attempts to explain it. It is like an atom trying to explain the universe for man to try to explain God.
| Ventureforth wrote: | | Methocostal wrote: | I must admit that I lean to "old earth" and that God was speaking in terms of "ages" or periods, rather than literal days. However, I also believe God could have done it 6 literal days as well.
I saw an interesting TV show recently on Christian TV (can't remember the name) where the pastor was interviewing an Astronomer. The professor said that when he visited MIT (I think it was) all 13 Astronomers were born again Christians and that it is very common for Astronomers to be Christian. His basic premise was that, with telescopes, we are able to look to the time of creation and can see the separation of light and dark as noted in the Bible. He indicated that most people believe virtually all scientists are atheists because of the prevelance of Biologists (which far exceed the number of Astronomers) are atheists. He said the primary reason for that is the Biologists are primarily examining the 7th day and do not see the origins of the Universe from the beginning as Astromers. Though he never stated it explicitly, I believe this particular professor was likely an "old earth" believer. Another interesting sidebar to the discussion was that he said the Scientific Method was outlined in Proverbs!
I believe God explained it in terms we could understand as in days, versus vast periods of billions of years. However, God could certainly speed up the process if he so chose.
Even according to Big Bang proponents, the vast majority of the Universe (or Universe's I suppose) were created in the first nanoseconds from the Big Bang. If God could do that in nanosecond (and I think the actual timespan is much quicker than the nanosecond I mentioned), he could certainly do everything else in 6 days. That said, I still lean to a multi billion year creation.
The most important concept is "God created"..... nufh said Well, that is what God said when he was writing the King James Version Bible |
I would be open to hearing arguments that persuaded you to lean old earth.
One thing that sticks in my mind that is not necessarily my best argument for my position but still makes me question. Why does God who spoke the earth into existence need millions or billions of years to create the earth? 6 days? He could do it in 6 seconds if he wanted. If He spoke the world into existence He must speak really slowly. (joke)
Another thing is perhaps a stronger argument in my opinion. The phrase "And there was evening and there was morning, the ___ day" God said it several times so apparently He was really trying to get something across to us.
I have to say that I am concerned that the secular scientific community persuades many to interpret the evidence more and more from a worldly and purely naturalistic perspective. |
|
Yeah, like I mentioned in my first point, it was not necessarily my strongest argument because God can create any way He chooses, as you have suggested. But we need to keep in mind He never contradicts Himself. More later. |
|
| Quote: | | 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. |
However, there are differing views as to what the light was.
Anyway, I am familiar with the distant starlight issue. I don't pretend to have all the answers either. In fact, I'm sure there is a lot of things about creation I understand. However, there are some proposals that look promising to me.
Here is a good summation of them from Dr. Jason Lisle:
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/does-distant-starlight-prove-the-universe-is-old/
The one I find the most intriguing is the one by Dr. Russell Humphreys called "time dilation." But from what I've read, he still has a few kinks to straighten out with his theory.
On the other hand, we shouldn't be lead into thinking that secular scientists don't have unanswered questions about their theories.
Macro Darwinian evolution is the theory that I don't agree with.
I was thinking suppose I get to heaven and it turns out it was "an old world after all." So what?
Great discussion! |
|
Friendly Face
Posts: 496
6/13/16 11:57 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
