/christian/ - christian

Discussion of Christianity, the Church, and theology

New Reply
Files Max 5 files32MB total
[New Reply]


John 3:16 KJV: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[Hide] (98.8KB, 349x500)
This thread is for discussion and the sharing information critical of evolution, old earth, attempts to allegorize the early chapters of Genesis, etc.

 I will be posting some basic info critical of (Neo-)Darwinism shortly.
Darwin's theory essentially holds that every species has variations. Some varieties turn out to be advantageous for competition in survival, breeding more, etc., while other varieties are not. Creatures with advantageous traits live longer, reproduce more and pass on the useful traits. This natural selection caused by environmental pressures causes species to develop in particular directions and, in time, to lead to the development of radically different species. All life is descended from a few primordial forms in a gradually branching and diversifying 'tree of life'. 

Some of this is true, some of this is not. This is why evolution is deceptively believable at first glance until one looks into it deeper. Yes, every species has variation within its bounds. This is true, and it can be readily confirmed by the diversity of human beings on this planet, and the diversity of different types of dog breeds, ranging from a Great Dane to a Chihuahua.  Darwin believed that changes could be extended without limit. What evolutionists do is rely on an extrapolation that varieties within the species can, over huge periods of time, become separate species in their own right. The question is whether this is true. Many qualified people have denied this:

Luther Burbank (American botanist and horticulturalist responsible for developing more than 800 strains and varieties of plants):
>I know from experience that I can develop a plum half an inch long or two-and-a-half inches long, with every possible length in between, but I am willing to admit that it is hopeless to try to get a plum the size of a small pea, or one as big as a grapefruit, I have roses that bloom pretty steadily for six months of the year, but I have none that will bloom twelve, and I will not have. In short, there are limits to the development possible.
(from Norman Macbeth's Darwin Retried)

Pierre Grassé (French zoologist and author of over 300 publications):
>In spite of the intense pressure generated by artificial selection (eliminating  any  parent  not  answering  the  criteria  of  choice) over whole millennia, no new species are born. A comparative study  of  sera,  hemoglobins,  blood  proteins,  interfertility,  etc., proves  that  the  strains  remain  within  the  same  specific  definition.  This  is  not  a  matter  of  opinion  or  subjective  classification,  but  a  measurable  reality.  The  fact  is  that  selection  gives tangible form to and gathers together all the varieties a genome is  capable  of  producing,  but  does  not  constitute  an  innovative evolutionary process.
(quoted from Philip Johnson's Darwin on Trial)

Francis Hitching (British author):
>It  is  now  absolutely  clear  that  there  are  firm  natural  limits  to what  can  be  done.  Remarkable  achievements  can  be  made  by crossbreeding and selection inside the species barrier, or within a  larger  circle  of  closely  related  species,  such  as  wheats.  But wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit. Between 1800 and 1878, the sugar content of beets was raised from 6 to 17  per  cent.  A  half  century  of  further  breeding  failed  to  make any difference.”
(quoted from Francis Hitching's The Neck of the Giraffe)

Things like bacteria and fruit flies are also ideal for this sort of study in trying to extrapolate varieties into entirely new kinds of organisms, since they reproduce so quickly. Despite cycling through thousands and thousands of generations of these organisms, there has never been any evidence of speciation among them from normal bacteria or normal fruit flies. Sometimes they come out and announce that they have done so, but invariably it is a variety that they selected for and nothing else (the same thing dog breeders do). One would think in a scientific, highly-controlled setting like this, that they would be able to make radical changes quickly. Evidence doesn't support this. 

It's also important to point out that instead of natural selection being seen as an innovative force as Darwin had postulated, some biologists, such as proponent of design Edward Blyth (who comes before Darwin, notably), wrote of natural selection as a conservative force, not an innovative one. Natural selection maintained the stability of the species within its environment, it functioned as a sort of quality control, removing defective varieties, while healthier and more well-adapted creatures would survive and reproduce. Essentially, Natural selection helps a species flourish by favoring gene combinations that allow it to adapt to new and changing conditions.
Replies: >>6965
It's also important to point out that Darwin, like Lamarck, believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. This is of course the idea that a creature will pass on useful adaptations that it made during its own lifetime, often demonstrated in the example of the giraffe stretching its neck to reach leaves, and then having children with slightly longer necks as a result. The inheritance of acquired characteristics was the driving force of Darwin's evolutionary theory. He proposed a theory called pangenesis in order to explain how this worked. External influences from the environment would affect the body, which would pass on influences to the reproductive elements, and the acquired traits would then be passed onto the offspring. The inheritance of acquired characteristics has of course been shown to be false time and time again, and so Darwin has lost the mechanism of innovation in his theory. Darwin had no knowledge of genetics either, which is in many ways not very amenable to his theory. Modern evolutionists of course reject ideas like pangenesis and the inheritance of acquired characteristics, and instead adhere to a modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics, what is called Neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is a much weaker theory that Darwin's. Darwin's evolutionary mechanism is almost deterministic. Creatures adapt for needed traits and pass them on. In Neo-Darwinism, the mechanism of innovation is random mutations in genes. Since they are random, they may or may not happen, and if they do occur, they probably won't happen when needed. If there is a drought, a hypothetical short-necked ancestor of the giraffe probably won't have the slightly longer neck needed to let it survive at that time (to give one example).

To jump back a bit, Mendel worked out the laws of inheritance. The laws of Mendel are basically the opposite of Darwin's. To compare the difference between the two of them, Mendel's theory is like shuffling a deck of cards. There is a large amount of combinations that can be created, but there are no new cards or information being added. Darwin's theory is that new cards can arise through shuffling them around. This of course is not observed. The 'beneficial mutations' of relied upon as an evolutionary mechanism are elusive as well. Most observed mutations are manifestly harmful or neutral at minimum, or examples like a bacterium becoming resistant to antibiotics, or how the mutation that creates sickle-cell anemia provides some resistance to malaria (but with the offset of chronic health issues and high mortality).

The Fossil Record
The issue with the fossil record not supporting evolutionists claims is well-known as well, in that there are no transitional forms as one would expect. Darwin himself said that this is 'the most serious objection which can be urged against the theory'. In Darwin's time geological layers outside of Europe and North America were still largely unexplored. Today paleontologists have carried out excavations from all geological time periods and in all parts of the globe, uncovering thousands of extinct species. Not a single intermediate species or chain of intermediates has ever been found though. In his 'Origin of Species', Darwin realized that the fossil record was the weakest part of his theory, writing:

>Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Swedish botanist Nils Heribert Nilsson summed the issue up in the following way:

>It may be firmly maintained that it is not even possi­ble to make a  caricature out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. De­ficiencies are real. They will never be filled ... The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.

Paleotologist and Evolutionist Niles Eldredge said:
>No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting from cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change - over millions of years, at a rate far too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.
[Hide] (29.7KB, 760x336)

(Fossil record cont.)
Paleontologist David Raup said:
>[W]e are about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded ... ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.

So what is expected to be seen in the fossil record of millions of years of Earth's history just is not there. Evolutionists are actually a bit concerned why they can't find the sort of gradual but constant change they expect to see in animals. It just isn't there, leading scientists like Stephen Jay Gould to posit even more unscientific and unobservable theories such as punctuated equilibrium, where most species over the duration of their existence exist in stasis with little to no change, and where there is occasional rapid change in isolated groups, or we have Richard Goldschmidt and his 'hopeful monster' monster theory where one species can just magically give birth to a new one all of the sudden. This is used to explain away the gaps in the record, it just happens so fast you'll never find any evidence!

The Cambrian Explosion
The Cambrian explosion is inconsistent with Darwin's idea of a gradually diversifying tree of life from a few different types of initial life-forms. The Cambrian explosion took place 541 million years ago. In the span of some 5-10 million years, literally 95% of all animal phyla today appeared abruptly in the fossil record. For clarity's sake, a phylum is a major group of life forms that are distinguished by large differences in morphology, body plans, etc. There exist no transitional forms between these phyla, either, unsurprisingly.  As time goes, the appearance of new classes (the level below phyla) also dramatically drops off, to the extent where new ones stop appearing for the remaining 500 million years of life history. We started with amazing diversity already, even on old earth assumptions.

From the very start Darwinian theory has been hard-pressed to explain the formation of complex organs such as eyes, or the brain. The general idea is that these organs develop by series of tiny, almost imperceptible steps. With the eye, they push the idea that it began as a tiny light-sensitive spot, but even this depends on a complex nervous system and inexplicable existence of a region of light sensitive cells. So basically they're starting with a simpler eye, but not explaining how it came to be in the first place, not to mention that diagrams trying to explain quietly slip in entirely new features like magic - now there is a cornea and lens! Now there is a retina and an iris! We must keep in mind that this has to be entirely undirected and blind according to Darwinian theory and that every change in series of changes has to be beneficial to the organism according the doctrine of natural selection. But how often do we see mutations that are beneficial? Oftentimes we see abominations and freaks created by random mutations, not helpful new traits. When is the last time you saw a baby with a birth defect having a useful adaptation? These are unscientific theories that can be be verified in the same way that Newton's theories of planetary orbits can. We can just look at see if actually follows according to what he proposed. Not so with evolution. One must accept it on faith. I imagine that the odds of random interactions of chemicals even forming a single cell are astronomically implausible, given that cells themselves are extremely complex organisms, a far cry from the 'protoplasm' of Darwin's day.
[Hide] (358.9KB, 1280x854)
https://back2godhead.com/science/ (non-Christian source, but the information is good)


Fr. Seraphim Rose on the fall of Adan and Eve:

Fr. Seraphim Rose's book on evolution, creation, young earth, etc:
>>2178 (OP) 
Materialist scientists don't believe in God and don't care to. They take their piecemeal frameworks of knowledge and project it into the primordial past, to be asserted as truth, because it befits the authorities of the Earth that there should be no deliverance for fallen man.
Replies: >>2197
That, and since they're on the hole so deep, their pride will not let them go back.
Anyone care to volunteer information on how unreliable carbon dating is?
Replies: >>2260 >>2262
In regards to what? Dinosaurs?
Carbon dating is largely a meme. One must remember that carbon dating is only 'accurate' out to around 50,000 years ago. The accuracy of this dating method also crucially relies on the assumption that the amount of the carbon-14 in the atmosphere has been constant, and that the decay rate into nitrogen proceeds constantly. There are numerous examples of modern mollusk shells that can be dated to be thousands of years old, freshly killed animals having calculated ages of over a millenium, among other things. It is also well known that over the past 60 plus years atmospheric radiocarbon levels have almost doubled due to above-ground nuclear weapons testing. Who knows what effects this has had on the accuracy of some measurements, if any. It has also been theorized that there is in general a fluctuation of the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere over time due to changes in the Earth's magnetic field, which would change the deflection of cosmic ray particles streaming towards Earth from the sun. The general theory is that carbon-14 is thought to be mainly a product of bombardment of the atmosphere by cosmic rays, so if the intensity varies over time, this would also affect the amount of carbon 14 in the environment at a given time, and thus effect datings. But even if it's perfect it only works out to 50,000 years and scientists readily admit this.

Also, this book has some appendices that deal with the age of the Earth:
Replies: >>2273 >>2497
Marvelous, thanks.
Got anything about how the Great Flood happened?

Me am Grug, so mostly questions out of me here.
Replies: >>2276
[Hide] (384KB, 483x581)
[Hide] (117KB, 462x200)
In terms of books, looking at the two pics attached for some good recommendations. I myself have not gone too deeply into studying the evidence for the Flood yet, but when I do, I will be relying on many of the sources recommended in those two images. It is also good to look into the various flood myths around the globe and their similarities with the Biblical narrative. The Indians claim that Manu built a boat and survived the great flood with several others, being towed by an avatar of Vishnu in the form of a giant fish. The Greeks claimed that Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha survived a great flood within a chest that destroyed all of humanity but themselves, and they landed on top of a mountain. Mesopotamian cultures talked of Utnapishtim who was told by Enki to build a great ship to survive a flood. He too brings animals aboard. In Hawaii, there is the legend of the man Nu'u who builds a boat to escape a flood, landing on top of a mountain. There is a rainbow in this story as well. There are flood legends all around the world, and this itself seems to point towards the fact that there was indeed a great flood at some point, and very few survived except for a small group who had foreknowledge of the flood, essentially restarting humanity from there. One thing to point out that you probably understand, but that many don't, is of course that just because a culture is alleged to have an older account of a flood myth (like the story of Utnapishtim) this doesn't mean that it was 'stolen' and put into the Bible. Genesis wasn't written until Moses was inspired  by God to write it, and Moses' account is the definitive account, and this can be confirmed with how Bible prophecies come true, but those of other religions do not.

For a super in-depth theological overview drawing on the Church Fathers regarding the flood, check out this chapter of the book I linked (but they don't go over evidence in this chapter)
Replies: >>2482
I have now ordered Mr. Whitcomb's book. Looking forward to it.

Anything you've got on other events from Genesis?
Replies: >>2483
>Anything you've got on other events from Genesis?
Anything in particular that interests you?
Replies: >>2503
Can you provide some sources?
Species change over time. Period. It's because of genetic variation and genetic mutation. Over the course of billions of years (not 6,000), species can change drastically, because of the enormous time span. It's not a valid refutation to say that you can't breed grapefruit sized plums over the course of a few dozen generations; of course you can't, and that doesn't disprove the theory of evolution. 

Evolution is not necessarily at odds with the Bible; there are interpretations of genesis that reconcile the two.

The function of genes and the innumerable forms of life on Earth are nothing short of miraculous. The fact that you people can't appreciate the complexity and intricacy of Creation shows you have the wisdom of a flea, and is the reason I refuse to take christians seriously. You aren't scholars, you aren't thinkers, and you don't speak the word of God. You are luddites and idiots. I'll look for fellowship and wisdom elsewhere.
Replies: >>2514
Well... The Antediluvian World.
Replies: >>2517
[Hide] (817.4KB, 1427x989)
>Species change over time. Period. It's because of genetic variation and genetic mutation
No one denies this.

>Over the course of billions of years (not 6,000), species can change drastically, because of the enormous time span.
You are assuming uniformitarian models of nature with no evidence. This is a philosophical assumption, not a fact. Not to mention that it directly conflicts with God’s revelation through Scripture.

>Evolution is not necessarily at odds with the Bible; 
God did not create death. Wisdom of Solomon 1:13-15 makes this as clear as day. Death and sin came into the world through the actions of a single man. Romans 5:12 makes this very clear. Romans 8:18-25 teaches us that the world subjected to futility and is under the bondage of decay—this is the direct result of Adam’s trangression, which affected the entire universe. You’re telling us to believe in a God which create death, which created a world that was corrupted and decaying for billions of years. This is not the God of the Bible.

>You aren't scholars, you aren't thinkers, and you don't speak the word of God. 
I scorn your wordly wisdom—“For the wisdom of this world is folly with God” (1 Corinthians 3:19). You trust the words and foolish wisdom of men over the God-breathed words of the Bible.
Replies: >>2535 >>3372 >>3380
The best resource for this is what the Church Fathers wrote - namely St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. John Chrysostom and similar figures. They essentially teach that when Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden that they still lived right near it. Here there is a tiny discrepancy between the LXX and the Masoretic texts that shapes their interpretations. Genesis 3:24 in the LXX reads:
>And he cast out Adam and caused him to dwell over against the garden of Delight, and stationed the cherubs and the fiery sword that turns about to keep the way of the tree of life.
And the Masoretic reads:
>He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.
The Septuagint has a sense of closeness to Eden that is not as clear in the Masoretic, but the Church Fathers teach that Adam dwelt near Eden, and that this was likely a time of repentance and grief for Adam. The nearness to the garden was spiritually beneficial to him and his wife, surely.

Now when Cain kills his brother and is cursed from the earth and goes to dwell in Nod, some try to ask where Cain got his wife, since the text reads at Genesis 4:16-17:
> So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch
The answer the Church Fathers give is that of course that this was one of Adam's daughters even though she has not been mentioned. Adam likely had hundreds of children (Genesis 5:4-5). This sort of thing, which is obvious unthinkable to our current generation, was permissible in this era. There would have been little to no risk of deformed offspring because there was little genetic entropy in this era, no genetic deterioration yet. And today, when there has been thousands of years of mutations, a lot of deterioration and disorders have accumulated. And today, the more closely related people are, the more likely they are to share mistakes, and the more likely their children are to be deformed or afflicted in some way.

From Genesis 5 onward, the Bible focuses on the descendants of Seth. These are best viewed as the 'chosen people' of this era. These were the virtuous descendants of Adam living near Eden, as opposed to the more corrupt descendants of Cain who dwelt in Nod. This leads us to a surprising interpretation that I am not sure I am entirely behind, but it is nevertheless a common explanation among the Church Fathers - they teach that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 were actually the virtuous Sethites living near Eden, while the "daughters of men" were the offspring of Cain. They have all sorts of explanations such as that of St. Ephraim the Syrian, who said that the Cainites were dying out and had a preponderance of daughters and desired to marry the sons of Seth. The sons of Seth were taken over by lust, and became corrupted along with the daughters of Cain. That's one explanation. The other is of course that the "sons of God" were fallen angels who were raping and having children with the daughters of men. This certainly supported by some Church Fathers, such as St. Justin Martyr (Apology 1.5) and St. Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies 4.36.4). This explanations was known to various pre-Christian Jews as well. I only recently learned of the Sethite and Cainite theory, and am not entirely sure what to think of it. I like the fallen angel theory because it fits with so much pagan mythology, personally. They both have interesting aspects to them.

Unfortunately though, we don't know all that much about the Antediluvian world. It was certainly much different than the world we know today. People were much less degenerated than they were now, and they lived for centuries at a time. Man was not yet permitted to eat meat, which is not permitted by God until Genesis 9:3. Humans were most likely still living in a limited geographical area, and they all, of course, still spoke a single language. Some have even theorized that the world knew no seasons prior to the Flood on the basis of Genesis 8:22. Though mankind was now living in a corrupt and fallen world, to our eyes today, the antediluvian world would essentially be a paradise to the eyes of the modern man.
Replies: >>2521 >>3516
>People were much less degenerated than they were now, and they lived for centuries at a time.
They were less degenerated in body from the state of Adam and Eve but don't pretend like the evil of man wasn't extant upon the Earth such that it warranted the complete destruction of all life save Noah and the ark.
Replies: >>2522
Of course, I didn't mean to imply that, we know that there were murders, polygamy and all sorts of evils being practiced even at this time. And as you said, it got very bad towards the end.
>uniformitarian models of nature with no evidence
But there is evidence of Earth being billions of years old, including radiometric dating. 

>a God... which created the world that was corrupted and decaying for billions of years. 
So you accept the Earth's age, but don't consider Earth to be made by God. That's interesting. 

>You trust the words and foolish wisdom of men over the God-breathed words of the Bible.
But the Bible was written by men. The Bible isn't perfect, which is clear from the apparent contradictions in the text.
Replies: >>2536 >>2549
Such as?
Replies: >>2539
[Hide] (7.3MB, 3327x4418)
Replies: >>2540 >>2553
>Reason Project 
Why do I have a feeling these are not terribly reasonable people? Or that every one of those was accounted for by a desert father who knew the actual 'context' of this Book better than any of these so-called reasoners?
Replies: >>2546
>argument from authority
Did you check the contradicting verses in the list? See for yourself whether you think they're right or not.
Replies: >>2547 >>2548
Except I know that authority is correct. I have no reason to distrust it. It is our tradition, after all. For the record, I don't trust a gaggle of secular eggheads who wouldn't know what truth or beauty was if it 'bit' them.  Advise trying a less pretentious source of argument.

By the way, the "fallacy card" only works situationally.
Replies: >>3325
You do realize religion is practical and not deductive right? That religious faith isn't a math equation?
Replies: >>2737
>But there is evidence of Earth being billions of years old, including radiometric dating. 
Based on uniformitarian assumptions. You’re making philosophical claims now, not doing science.

>So you accept the Earth's age, but don't consider Earth to be made by God. That's interesting. 
Literally not what was said at all.

>But the Bible was written by men. 
Obviously. Still an inspired text though. Demonstrated by prophetic claims being fulfilled

>The Bible isn't perfect, which is clear from the apparent contradictions in the text.
No contradictions on vital matters that distort the theological integrity of Scripture.
This was posted back on old /Christian/, I recall someone replying to it explaining why it's wrong but I don't remember the post itself. Unfortunately there aren't as many old posters that stuck around. I don't spend much on apologisim myself so the best I could do at the moment is mention online playlists from apologist youtubers.
Allegedly 65-million years old, but found with soft, pliable tissue, proteins, blood vessels and red blood cells. Hmm
[Hide] (184.6KB, 375x469)
Replies: >>2739
At the end of his life he realized that trying to fit the endless horizons of Christianity into a single work of Aristotelian philosophy would be a futile task.
Replies: >>2741
 >At the end of his life he realized that trying to fit the endless horizons of Christianity into a single work of Aristotelian philosophy would be a futile task.
[citation needed]
>endless horizons
This is a meaningless phrase at best.  At worst, it sounds like you're advocating process theology or universalism.  Please correct me, because I really don't want to make that uncharitable assumption.
>into a single work of Aristotelian philosophy would be a futile task.
Well, he did perform that "futile task," so...

"Religion," or rather, "Christianity," can absolutely be reasoned.  Not applying reason makes you either superstitious or lazy.  Theology is reason applied to religion.  It's absolutely deductive and saying otherwise is incoherent.

>Christ died for our sins.
>Only one sacrifice was necessary for sins past and future.
>Christ and His sacrifice are extratemporal and omnipresent.

Do you think that all of your beliefs were arbitrarily proclaimed by some distant authority for no particular reason?
Replies: >>2742 >>3274 >>3283
What was it that Father Brown said gave a thief away? 
"You attacked reason. It's bad theology."
Replies: >>3274
Why do so many Christians  get hung up on dinosaurs when they simply could have died long before the Flood?
Replies: >>3275
[Hide] (45.1KB, 850x400)
He had a mystical experience during Mass near the end of his life and stopped working on the Summa Theologica for a year, before dying. When his brethren urged him to continue, he declared this. The Summa was left unfinished. At least do the slightest bit of research man. It's not that faith cannot be reasoned, but that it also all surpasses the bounds of our present reason.
Replies: >>3278
A lot of people don’t realize that the dating methods of scientists are based on naturalistic and uniformitarian assumptions by the past, so when they hear a scientist say that dinosaurs lived a 100 million years ago, they don’t question the data or the philosophy underlying the methods that led to the conclusion in the first place. Dinosaurs probably did mostly die out in the Flood. Some lived afterwards too, most likely, and were known as dragons. The fact that dinosaurs didn’t live tens of millions or over a hundred million years ago is demonstrated by the fact that several finds have been made where the intact skin of dinosaurs, or blood, veins and bones have been uncovered. The damage control that resulted from these finds has been amazing.
Replies: >>3302 >>3315
Noah's Ark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f4uF4Va9gI
They're finally going to start digging up more remains of Noah's Ark.  I think most people know about it by now but Noah's Ark was never lost. There's many references to it through history, people used to go up and break off pieces. But I think the digging they're going to dig is what the Bible talks about when it says in the end times people will be ignorant of Creation and the flood. People will ignore the actual evidence.

All you have to do to disprove evolution to someone is ask them to explain how it works. I would say 99% of people who believe in evolution don't even know that it requires the "life force" God. People who believe in evolution don't realise that atheist evolution means RANDOM mutations. 

The second issue is that you still have to believe in magic. Just magic that isn't recorded in history. Nature can't create itself that's the first magic trick, the second magic trick is life. Where does organic life come from. No amount of rolling rocks around in mud and water has ever produce a single cell organism which then some how fed and reproduced and all these symbiotic relationships formed. The theory is based on zero scientific evidence. So organic life is the second magic trick.
The most important questions about existence are mysteriously unexplainable through nature itself.

Dinosaurs: https://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/

Kent Hovind
Replies: >>3359 >>3366
[Hide] (786.1KB, 1219x1626)
And if you dispute my discourse on the magnitude of God's power and glory, here is Augustine expressing his reverence and awe of His perfection and wonder in superior prose in Book 11, Chapter 4 of Confessions. I'm not expressing it as
 some form of universalism and I don't even know what "process theology" is besides being some 19th century innovation. God's might and majesty and the scope of His omnipotence is so vast for anyone besides Him in the Godhead to wholly comprehend, and everything that can be written in an earthly lifetime is in juxtaposition, chaff. By the Holy Spirit, we might aspire to know at least some part of His fullness, by His grace. For those things which are necessary to know for salvation, He declared to all in the Law and the Gospel, but even as above Saint John the Evangelist communicates at the conclusion of his gospel:
>And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
John 21:25
[Hide] (76.9KB, 314x599)
>Do you think that all of your beliefs were arbitrarily proclaimed by some distant authority for no particular reason?
And lastly on this point, how do you even read that into the post? I believe that the pre-existent Word, God the Son, was incarnate in the flesh as Jesus Christ and dwelt among us, who in His manifestation circumscribed as an icon the divinity which is uncircumscribable, invisible, and incomprehensible, and therefore is the only way through which mankind can be reconciled with God. This isn't something I've invented, this is the orthodox and catholic declaration of Nicaea II:
>...the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us — that is, as perfect man — they do very right. For God the Word who dwelt among us was circumscribed in the flesh, and never did any one attempt to depict His deity; for He says, ' No man hath seen God at any time.' He is as God uncircumscribed, invisible, 'incomprehensible,' but he is circumscribed as to His manhood (p. 337)
>The unbuilt-up, indivisible, 'incomprehensible', and non-circumscribed Trinity; he, wholly and alone, is to be worshipped and revered with adoration; 

So I humbly ask brother, what do (You) believe in?
Amazing, amusing, or both?
You might just be the dumbest human being in the world. How did you manage to put on pants this morning?
Replies: >>3345
[Hide] (63.4KB, 480x640)
There is a big difference between Western and Eastern theology. Eastern Christian theology is apophatic. It describes things by describing what they are not. Which means they will only tell you what is not true, but never what is absolutely true. The reason is that only God can be absolutely correct. Claiming to understand His mind and to speak in His place as if we knew His mind is hubris. Therefore, the Scriptures are not seen as literal truth and there is no point to the dispute between Evolution and Genesis. Evolution belongs to the realm of science (Episteme in Greek=that which can be known/understood) and Genesis belongs to the realm of faith (Πίστις in Greek=trust/surrender in the hands of God). 

Church deals with faith, not science.
Replies: >>3335
[Hide] (154.2KB, 1024x683)
Professors of Belgrade’s University of Orthodox Christian Theology (Pravoslavni Bogoslovski Fakultet) have recently expressed that theory of evolution is the best theory so far that deals with origin of life. And also, that one shouldn't read Bible as factual report of the past events.

All this happened in response to calls of some uneducated religious fanatics for the state to ban theory of evolution in schools and replace it with Biblical stories about origin of life. Orthodox Christianity is not in conflict with science. Such a thing comes from USA and unfortunately spills over its borders. Luckily it can be easily contained and neutralized. The response has put an end to such calls and discussions in public.
Replies: >>3335 >>5932
[Hide] (52.9KB, 570x514)
Orthodox Christians say two things;

1. Everything begins with God. What happened from that beginning point on we don’t say we know because we don’t. What science discovers isn’t problematic.

2. At some point that is God determined, man became more than an animal. Man is aware of his spiritual self (not just mind and body). Man is unique. The term Adam and Eve are the first self aware spiritual beings and not necessarily the first humans ever.

I know some people are going to go nuts reading this but Orthodox Christians leave much to mystery. It would be pretty arrogant to claim that we know exactly how God created everything! It’s better to say All begins with God and leave it there. Science becomes a friend.
Replies: >>3335
There is no official line regarding evolution. The only things we concern ourselves with enough to establish official understandings about are (basically) the teachings of the Apostles, and the Seven Ecumenical Councils which were convened to clarify points which had become muddied by popular opinions.

In fact, regarding the idea of evolution, my Priest very explicitly states that we have no idea how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden for, nor what the earth looked like once they were expelled. It is conceivable, and even acceptable (if odd) that the “Two legged beasts" created on the fifth day are our hominid “ancestors”. Also it is conceivable that when Adam and Eve were expelled, that they came out to a world of cavemen, and from cavemen did Cain and Seth take wives; that what distinguished these people from the cavemen were the “breath of God" which was breathed into our initial progenitors.

Evolution seems to be a fact. But our Church hasn't weighed in on it, because there's no real reason to. There may be someday, but it isn't today.
Replies: >>3335 >>3346
>appeal to authority
>argument against the man
>doesn't understand what a logical fallacy is
>calls others pretentious
People like you are the reason why normies think Christians are retarded.
Replies: >>3351
[Hide] (30.2KB, 400x360)
Would it be a stretch to say something like... Evolution is the story but Biblical Creation is the plot?
Replies: >>3336 >>3341 >>3365
[Hide] (6.1MB, 960x720, 00:31)
Not that anon but you just reminded me of this
Replies: >>5933 >>5972
Evolution or Evolutionism? Take care to define your terms carefully.
Replies: >>3343
I'm sorry. What's the difference? Isn't evolutionism just believing and advocating evolution?
Replies: >>3344
Short answer, no.
As for the long answer... well, I'm at work right now. Have you ever heard of E.F. Schumacher and his Guide for the Perplexed? Or The Transformist Illusion''? I can get back to you on the former later, as I have it.
Replies: >>3353
What a womanly response.
>my Priest very explicitly states that we have no idea how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden for
This is true, but it doesn’t matter. The entire creation was incorrupt and deathless, for animals and men alike. There can be no evolution under these conditions, which require billions of years and death and corruption. Scripture is clear that God did not create death, and that it came into the world through man alone. God created everything from the beginning in accordance with its kind (which is not identical with the nebulous scientific concept of a ‘species’). Unless one is to say that the God-breathed Scripture is wrong here, the natural conclusion is that Adam, Eve and the animals lived for an indeterminate amount of time in the garden in a state of deathlessness and incorruptibility along with the rest of the created order.

>It is conceivable, and even acceptable (if odd) that the “Two legged beasts" created on the fifth day are our hominid “ancestors”.
I do not see this in the section on day five. Here birds and aquatic creatures are created. There seems to be nothing about two-legged creatures on day six either outside of the creation of man.

>it is conceivable that when Adam and Eve were expelled, that they came out to a world of cavemen, and from cavemen did Cain and Seth take wives
They were daughters of Adam. This is the natural conclusion and the teaching of the Church Fathers. Already on this timescale one is distorting Scripture and forgetting that Adam and his descendents lived for hundreds and hundreds of years at a time. The descendents of Cain in particular lived in urban areas and were metal-workers and players of the flute and harp (Genesis 5). They were identical with humans today in almost every respect except that they lived much longer than us.
Replies: >>3364 >>5935
>muh fallacy 
Is not and never has been a magic talisman which can suddenly invalidate a statement just because you don't like it. Also, did you seriously comb a whole thread just for that? Talk about petty.
Replies: >>3360
Please do! I'm afraid I haven't read much philosophy.
Replies: >>3403 >>3405 >>3406
Not really about the creation but I do want to add Ron Wyatt as well. It's Genesis related, some of it.

If you can show that a statement is based on fallacy, then yes, that statement is invalid. 
And yes, I read the whole thread. Like you're supposed to do.
Replies: >>3368
'Is Genesis History?'
>Adam, Eve, and the animals lived
I thought the garden of Eden was distinct and separate from the Earth. If so, then you're wrong, and the Genesis is compatible with evolution because what happened in the material world is not necessarily what was happening in Eden. 

>I do not see this in the section on day five
You're right, day 6, and I call them two legged beasts because they were separate from Adam and Eve and presumably didn't have souls. 

>They were daughters of Adam
Gen 6:
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose...
Why do you think they made this distinction between the children of God and the children of men? At the very least, you have to admit it's ambiguous, and open to interpretation.

To be honest, it seems like you have preconceived notions about the world that you want to defend, instead of being open to new information and humbly learning  about the world. Socrates- "All that I know is that I know nothing."
Replies: >>3367
That's what I believe. Well said.
[Hide] (88.5KB, 694x466)
[Hide] (26.1KB, 939x459)
Those links are pretty bad. 
Look at these pictures... He uses this as evidence for dinosaurs coexisting with early man. Pretty flimsy.... Look at the rock wall, and how much of the drawing has fallen away; it could be a drawing of anything, and they're more likely to be anything else in the world than dinosaurs. 

About the soft tissue and blood cells in the T-Rex remains...

>Young earth creationists have widely cited these findings as evidence that dinosaur fossils cannot really be millions of years old, and so the rock layers (radioactively dated to more than 65 million years of age) cannot really be millions of years old—and so, it is claimed, the whole old-earth dating edifice collapses. There are multiple reasons why these claims are false. I have read through most of Schweitzer’s papers on this topic, and reviewed the key findings from them in a 25-page article, which is posted on the Letters to Creationists blog as “Dinosaur Soft Tissue.” For lots of data and literature references, that is the place to go. For those who do not want to wade through all that information, here are some key takeaways.
>These remarks pertain mainly to thigh bones from two dinosaur specimens, a T. rex (approx. 68 million years old) and a duckbill hadrosaur (approx. 80 million years old). In both cases, the fossils had been buried in sandstone (which may help wick away destructive enzymes from the corpse) and the fossils were analyzed within a relatively short time after excavation, which minimized degradation from sudden exposure to a new set of environmental conditions.
>The proteins which have been identified include collagen, actin, and tubulin. These are known to have structures which are resistant to degradation, especially when they are crosslinked. Tests indicate that these proteins from the dinosaur bones are indeed highly crosslinked, which appears to be a key aspect of their longevity.
>Beside the effect of iron, being in contact with the mineral walls of the pores, and being sealed in tiny pores, away from the enzymes and other body chemicals, can act to preserve remnants of the original proteins. Also, if soft tissue is initially dried out before it decays, it undergoes changes that make it more stable even if it is later rehydrated. Thus,  several plausible mechanisms are known to help explain the preservation of these flexible tissues, and there are likely other factors yet to be discovered.

Replies: >>3375 >>3382
>I thought the garden of Eden was distinct and separate from the Earth
The Garden of Eden was located on a specific place on Earth. This is made clear by Genesis 2:10-14 which give us a vague location for Eden, even citing for us earthly rivers which are extant today, such as the Tigris and the Euphrates. Scripture indicates, however, that the effects of Adam's sin rippled out to the entire universe. Romans 8:20-22 is the key proof-verse for this:
>For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.

The entire creation, not just man, was corrupted, as we can see from this passage. It was subjected to "bondage to corruption" and "subjected to futility". And then to further support this, we of course know that according to the Wisdom of Solomon 1:13-16 that:
>...God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. For he created all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth: (for righteousness is immortal:) but ungodly men with their works and words called it to them: for when they thought to have it their friend, they consumed to nought, and made a covenant with it, because they are worthy to take part with it. 

Here we learn that God created 'all things' so that they may exist and have being, and that death, crucially, is not a creation of God. God's 'very good' creation of Genesis 1-2 was deathless and incorruptible for 'all things'.  

So from this, so far we can conclude the following:
>God did not create death in general
>creation itself was subjected to futility and bondage through sin (so Adam and Eve weren't just dumped into an already-corrupt mateiral world)
These both preclude evolution, needless to say.

>because what happened in the material world is not necessarily what was happening in Eden. 
I know you probably just mean to separate the incorrupt Eden from the rest of the world in this statement, but we must of course remember that Eden was always a part of the material world. Adam and Eve were created as very physical beings. The idea that Adam and Eve somehow received material bodies after the first sin is actually a pagan intrusion into Christian modes of thought. 

>Why do you think they made this distinction between the children of God and the children of men?
It can be slightly ambiguous, but Tradition gives us two interpretations. One is that that when Cain went to Nod, he was the progenitor of a more corrupt and less godly race of man. The Daughters of Men, according to this interpretation were Cainites, and the Sons of God were the descendents of Seth, who were more virtuous and godly. They intermixed and God destroyed them all except Noah and his family. This interpretation was endorsed by St. Ephraim the Syrian, and St. John Chrysostom (iirc), as well as many others. The more common interpretation (and the one I support) is that this was the interbreeding of fallen angels and women. This is a common motif in pagan myths, creating so-called 'demi-gods'. This was an interpretation known in the pre-Christian Jewish world, and among early Christians such as St. Irenaeus and St. Justin Martyr.

>it seems like you have preconceived notions about the world that you want to defend
Yes, I have a preconceived notion of the truth of Scripture. This shouldn't be controversial here. Scripture is inspired and written by God's prophets for our benefit. The fullness of Biblical truth is impoverished when so-called 'philosophy' is put above the inspired word of God. Colossians 2:8 sums this up:
>See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

The Word of God will always be superior than the traditions of men. Philosophy is defined as the 'love of wisdom', but true philosophy is to love Wisdom Himself, i.e. Christ, and to have faith in Him. Scripture is God-breathed.
Replies: >>3372
According to? Perhaps my wording was poor, but the intent was to make it abundantly clear I would not accept that source, and was perfectly satisfied with scholars from my own tradition. And it was made clear.
Replies: >>3396
>The Word of God superior to the traditions of men
But... The bible was written by men, Anon. And Christianity IS a religious tradition. Everything humans do is fallible, and that includes writing the Bible. You think it's the infallible word of God because someone said it was. It's just more circular logic. 
I'm not an atheist, but this hard-line thinking really turns me off from religion. It's hubris.

I guess I can respect your resolve, but regardless, this is a fact: species change over time due to genetic variation and mutation, it's been going on for billions of years, and this process seems to be responsible for the multitude of life on Earth. I don't see why such an elegant system can't be God's plan and God's design. Sure, it contradicts the Jewish creation myth, but only if you take Genesis literally... Boiled down, Genesis describes a fall into the material realm, which is true; your soul is something more than material, but for now it's trapped in the material world, and you may have done something bad to deserve it (original sin). In this sense, it's perfectly elegant and compatible with evolution. 

This guy (>>2514) says the theory of evolution is "assuming uniformitarian models of nature with no evidence". That's bullshit, there is tons of evidence. He's denying reality because his hubris is so great he'd rather cling to his fallacious worldview than accept something that can be proven. It's disgusting and it drives me away from this religion. I'm glad Orthodox Christians seem a little smarter, because otherwise I would discard the whole thing on principle. Modern society needs wisdom and spiritual guidance, which is why I'm interested in religion. We don't need more irrational nonsense. 

A Catholic priest is responsible for the big bang theory. Most Orthodox Christians seem to accept the theory of evolution as the system God designed to create life. Science should complement religion, not be at odds with it.
Replies: >>3373 >>3380
Not that anon, I have a personal theory of the literal seven day creation that's completely out of left field theology wise so I won't set it out for now. There are three points that I want to lay out however:
1. God, being transcendent, is outside of space-time, and in omnipotence, would have control over space-time. His declaration of universal creation in seven days can be taken as a affirmative statement of His capabilities.
2. On the "old Earth," we're told that God rested on the seventh day, but there's nothing that says God stopped creating afterwards. Being an extemporaneous being, he could create new historical eraa and to us it would never have seemed to be discontinuous. 
3. Theistic evolution is a nice mirage, but it's incompatible with the Christian understanding of a harmonious cosmos. Darwinian evolution requires competition, and death and extinction are taken as normative elements of the selective process. In the Christian metaphysic there was no death at the beginning and will be no death at its end. God is the Lord, the giver of life,
>In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not
John 1:4-5
So while there may exist death as a result of the fall of man, it is no immovable fact of existence and is ultimately ephemeral in the divine plan.
Replies: >>3376
All that can preserve it for millions of years?
>No death at the beginning or end
>incompatible with harmonious cosmos
Couldn't this just mean there is no death in heaven? Heaven is perfect, but the lower realms are not. Death is inevitable here in this world, seemingly by design. Things inevitably break. Even the sun will eventually run out of fuel and collapse. 

>On the "old Earth," we're told that God rested on the seventh day, but there's nothing that says God stopped creating afterwards. 
That's an interesting thought, but it seems like you take Genesis literally and only let other ideas slip through the cracks. Don't you think Genesis could be more general in meaning, and that the details don't really matter? Other creation myths have different details, but a similar central meaning as Genesis (you're in a fallen state, your soul is being tested, etc.). The details of the story seem to be made up as a way of conveying this deeper meaning. 
Is it possible that this is true for Genesis? I believe in the message of Genesis, but not the details: I believe we're in a fallen state, we're being tested, and we did something bad to be here -- but I don't believe Adam and Eve really existed as described in the bible, in fact I think they were invented as a vehicle to explain these difficult concepts in a way ancient people could understand, by personifying and mythologizing the concepts in the form of a story. Is it possible to interpret it this way? I think it's the only way I can believe in and find value in it.
Replies: >>3381 >>3454 >>5935
>But... The bible was written by men, Anon.
Who denied this? Can Scripture not be written by men and inspired by the Holy Spirit? This is what the Bible is. I am shocked to see you seemingly deny this when prophetically the Bible has been 100% accurate when it came to the coming of Christ, and is confirmed over and over again through various extra-Biblical sources, whether textually or archeologically. The Bible is inspired.

>And Christianity IS a religious tradition
Founded by Jesus Christ and invested with the Holy Spirit. 

>species change over time due to genetic variation and mutation
Are you aware that not even the most hardline creationists deny this?

>it's been going on for billions of years
How do you know that the past goes back billions of years? Were you there? What presuppositions undergirded the methodology that led to the conclusion that the past extends that far back in the past? This is just philosophy, not science. Again, it's just unfounded uniformitarian assumptions about Nature. 

>I don't see why such an elegant system can't be God's plan and God's design.
You believe in a God of death, evidently.

>Genesis describes a fall into the material realm, which is true; your soul is something more than material, but for now it's trapped in the material world, and you may have done something bad to deserve it (original sin). In this sense, it's perfectly elegant and compatible with evolution. 
'This isn't even Christianity at this point'. You seem to describe the pre-existence of souls, this material world as something evil and as a prison for souls. This is literally gnosticism and paganism. This is what happens when you begin to engage in this sort of philosophical speculation and approach Scripture with an arrogant attitude that (you) know better than the men whom God inspired to write Genesis and the other books of the Bible.

>This guy (>>2514) says the theory of evolution is "assuming uniformitarian models of nature with no evidence". That's bullshit, there is tons of evidence.
Prove that the laws of nature have been uniform for billions of years in the past. Hint: you can't, because even if they had changed, scientists would have no way of ever knowing that they did, because science cannot even function without the assumption of uniformitarianism, because you can't make predictions about something that you have no idea how it was or how it functioned different from what you observe now. You cannot even conclude via reason that the future will resemble the past without making a circular argument. This is the problem with induction. The Bible doesn't describe a uniformitarian world. Uniformitarianism is a philosophical presupposition and nothing more. 

> It's disgusting and it drives me away from this religion.
You are emotional and have no reasons for why you continue to throw derision against Scripture as 'Jewish myths' (very telling wording for you here) and go to preach paganism.

> because otherwise I would discard the whole thing on principle.
You'd damn your soul to hell because you can't believe what God inspired people to write down for your benefit? Top kek
Replies: >>3395 >>3396
[Hide] (795.7KB, 1267x1600)
>But I don't believe Adam and Eve really existed as described in the bible, 
Oh no no no
Replies: >>3396
These plenty of depictions of dinosaurs by humans catogorised on the website

>Who denied this? 
To say the  Bible is the infallible word of God is to deny that mankind, and anything mankind does, is prone to error. 

>Can Scripture not be written by men and inspired by the Holy Spirit? 
Sure, inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it wasn't written by the Holy Spirit, so it probably isn't perfect. 

>prophetically the Bible has been 100% accurate when it came to the coming of Christ
I'm unfamiliar with this. Can you tell me where to read more about it? 
The problem with prophecy is that it's usually so vague that  you can make all kinds of post hoc justifications as to why some unrelated event is actually the fulfillment of prophecy. It's the same error in judgement that causes people to still wank over Nostradamus and pay 'psychics' to lie to them. 

>invested with the Holy Spirit. 

>Are you aware that not even the most hardline creationists deny this?
I wasn't aware. That's what evolution is, so I guess creationists believe in evolution. Neat.

>How do you know that the past goes back billions of years? Were you there?
Lmao, really? We *think* we know the age of the universe because of the mountain of evidence you are so intent on denying. 

>What presuppositions undergirded the methodology that led to the conclusion that the past extends that far back in the past?
The scientific method. 

>This is just philosophy, not science.
Lol, anything that helps you sleep at night. I hereby deem you a Christcuck, both distinct from and inferior to a Christian. 

>Again, it's just unfounded uniformitarian assumptions about Nature. 
Oh, it was you that left that stupid comment before. Nice. Unfortunately for your delusions, there is no evidence to suggest that the laws of physics changed 6 thousand years ago. I hereby deem you a Turbo Christcuck. 

>You believe in a God of death, evidently.
All things come from God, through God. Death is a thing, so I guess your beliefs directly contradict Romans 11:36, you Heretical Turbo Christcuck, by which name you are hereby deemed.

>This isn't even Christianity at this point. 
You'd probably say the same thing if I denied the trinity, even though the trinity wasn't part of Jesus' ministry or the early Church. Maybe you're the one who isn't really a Christian, ever think of that?
Replies: >>5936

>This is what happens when you begin to engage in this sort of philosophical speculation 
Translation: This is what happens when you engage your mind for more than five minutes.

>arrogant attitude that (you) know better than the men whom God inspired to write Genesis 
Whom God (allegedly) inspired to write Genesis. Not very convincing. I am above no man, and no man is above me. The ideas should stand on their own.

>Prove that the laws of nature have been uniform for billions of years in the past
<Prove this unfalsifiable statement isn't true.
That's not how it works, Anon. You're the one claiming the laws of physics changed, so the burden of proof is on you. It has to be that way, or else I could claim any nonsense I want, and say "well prove it DIDN'T happen!" That's madness. 
For what it's worth, according to the Big Bang Theory, which was proposed by Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaître, it's likely that the laws of physics were indeed very different in the earliest moments of the universe. There seems to be >>>>*evidence*<<<< to suggest it.

>scientists would have no way of ever knowing ...   presupposition and nothing more. 
Yup. It's based on lot of assumptions about what's *most likely* true. We might discover something that throws it all into question. The key words are "most likely". I would categorize your view as "least likely". 

>science cannot even function without the assumption of uniformitarianism
You mean the theory of the age of the universe can't function without that assumption. Science functions just fine when discussing things in the laws of physics currently imposed on us. However, science does assume that the laws of physics don't change moment to moment at random, so if that's what uniformitarianism means to you then I guess you're right, but I think most people would disagree with your definition.

>circular argument
lol, lmao

>You are emotional
Nope, I'm not emotional at all. I'm describing honestly my opinion about this line of thinking. Maybe I'm being a bit mean.

>derision against Scripture as 'Jewish myths' (very telling wording for you here) and go to preach paganism.
Anon... the Old Testament (Tanakh) is part of the Jewish religion, and Genesis is the Jewish creation myth. By definition. The fact you think it's derision to call something Jewish is more telling of your mindset than of mine. 

>You'd damn your soul to hell because you can't believe what God inspired people to write down for your benefit? Top kek
>it's true because.... you'd just better believe it!!!!!!!!
Unconvincing argument is an understatement. I have a hard time believing God talks to people when it's indiscernible from the normal process by which myths are created. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you.

In review:
If this is Christianity then I'd rather join a thong-wearing African witch doctor cult than associate with you imbeciles.  

>it's true because we said so, sweaty
Sorry, I'm not stupid enough to believe things with no evidence that don't make any sense. That's why I'm not a leftist, why I don't believe in covid hysteria, and why I'm giving a fair shake to religion. 

>reads a proof
>asks "according to who?"
I guess authority is the only thing you understand. Are Christians just old world normies?
Replies: >>3397
Are you just a redditor?
Replies: >>3398
Nice argument, tard. You forgot to greentext my post with a soyjak.
Replies: >>3403
Ah, and I see your vocabulary has already begun to degenerate. Ho hum. Anyway...
>"Evolution in biology," says Julian Huxley look him up, by the way, and behold the Cain to Aldous's Able, "is a loose and comprehensive term applied to cover any and every change occurring in the constitution of systematic units of animals and plants..." That there has been change in the constitution of species of animals and plants in the past is amply attested by the fossils found in the earth's crust; with the help of radioactive dating, they have been put into historical sequence with a very high degree of scientific certainty. Evolution, as a generalization within the descriptive science of biological change, can for this as well as for other reasons be taken as established beyond any doubt whatever. 
>The Evolutionist Doctrine, however, is a very different matter. Not content to confine itself to a systematic description of biological change, it purports to prove and explain it in much the same manner as proof and explanation are offered in the instructional sciences. This is a philosophical error with the most disastrous consequences.
>"Darwin," we are told, "did two things: he showed that evolution was in fact contradicting scriptural legends ofcreation and that its cause, natural selection, was automatic with no room for divine guidance or design." It should be obvious to anyone capable of philosophical thought that scientific observation as such can never do these "two things." "Creation," "divine guidance," and "divine design" are completely outside the possibility of scientific observation. Every animal or plant breeder knows beyond doubts that selection, including "natural selection," produces change; it is therefore scientifically correct to say that "natural selection has been proved to be an agent of evolutionary change." We can, in fact, prove it by doing. But it is totally illegitimate to claim that the discovery of this mechanism--natural selection--proves that evolution "was automatic with no room for divine guidance or design." It can be proved that people get money by finding it in the street, but no one would consider this sufficient reason for the assumption that all incomes are earned in this way.
>The Doctrine of Evolutionism is generally presented in a manner which betrays and offends against all principles of scientific probity. It starts with the explanation of changes in living beings; then, without warning, it suddenly purports to explain not only the development of consciousness, self-awareness, language, and social institutions but also the origin of life itself. "Evolution," we are told, "is accepted by all biologists and natural selection is recognised as its cause." Since the origin of life is described as a "major step in evolution," we are asked to believe that inanimate matter is a masterful practitioner of natural selection. For the Doctrine of Evolutionism any possibility, no matter how remote, appears to be acceptable as if it were scientific proof that the thing actually happened:
<When a sample atmosphere of hydrogen, water vapour, ammonia, and methane was subjected to electric discharges and ultraviolet light, large numbers of organic compounds...were obtained by automatic synthesis. This proved that a prebiological synthesis of complex compounds was possible.
>On this basis we are expected to believe that licing beings suddenly made their appearance by pure chance and, having done so, were able to maintain themselves in the general chaos:
<It is not unreasonable to suppose that life orginiated in a watery "soup" of prebiological organic compounds and that lcing organisms arose later by surrounding quantities of these compounds by membranes that made them into "cells." This is usually considered the starting point of organic ("Darwinian") evolution.
>One can just see it, can't one: organic compounds getting together and surrounding themselves by membranes--nothing could be simpler for these clever compounds--and lo! there is the cell, and once the cell has been born there is nothin to stop the emergence of Shakespeare, although it will obviously take a bit of time. There is therefore no need to speak of miracles or to admit any lack of knowledge. Iti is one of the great paradoxes of our age that people claiming the proud title of "scientist" dare to offer such undisciplined and reckless speculations as contributions to scientific knowledge, and that they get away with it.
Replies: >>3405 >>3415
>Karl Stern, a psychiatrist with great insight, has commented thus: 
<If we present, for the sake of argument, the theory of evolution in a most scientific formulation, we have to say something like this: "At a certain moment of time the temperature of the Earth was such that it became most favourable for the aggregation of carbon atoms and ocygen with the nitrogent-hydrogen combination, and that from random occurrences of large clusters molecules occurred which were most favourably structured for the coming about of life, and from that point it went on through vast stretches of time, until through processes of natural selection a being finally occurred which is capable of choosing love over hate and justice over injusticie, of writing poetry like Dante, composing music like that of Mozart, and making drawings like thoses of Leonardo." 'Of course, such a view of cosmogenesis is crazy. And I do not at all mean crazy in the sense of slangy invective but rather in the technical meaning of psychotic. Indeed such aview has much in common with certain aspects of schizophrenic thinking.'
>The fact remains, however, that this kind of thinking continues to be offered as objective science not only to biologists but to everybody eager to find out the truth about the origin, meaning, and purpose of human existence on Earth, and that, in particular, all over the world virtually all children are subjected to indoctrination along these lines.
>It is the task of science to observe and to report on its observations. It is not useful for it to postulate the existence of causative agents, like a Creator, intelligences, or designers, who are outside all possibilities of outside observation. "Let us see how far we can explain phenomena by observable causes" is an eminently sensible and, in fact, very fruitful methodological principle. Evolutionism, however, turns methodology into a faith which excludes, ex hypothesi, the possibility of all higher grades of significance. The whole of nature, which obviously includes mankind, is taken as the product of chance and necessity and nothing else; there is neither meaning nor purpose, nor intelligence in it--"a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing." This is The Faith, and all contradicting observations have to be either ignored or interpreted in such a way that the Faith is upheld.
>Evolutionism as currently presented has no basis in science. It can be described as a peculiarly degraded religion, many of whose high priests do not even believe in what they proclaim. Despite widespread disbelief, the doctrinaire propagand which insists that the scientific knowledge of evolution leaves no room for any higher faith continues unabated. Counterarguments are simply ignored. The article on "evolution" in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1975) concludes with a section entitled "The Acceptance of Evolution," which claims that "objections to evolution have come from theological and, for a time, from political standpoints." Who would suspect, reading this, that the most serious objections have been raised by numerous biologists and other scientist of unimpeachable credentials? It is evidently thought unwise to mention them, and books like Douglas Dewar's The Transformist Illusion, which offers an overwhelming refutation of Evolutionism on purely scientific grounds, are not considered fit for inclusion in the bibliography of the subject.
Replies: >>3406 >>3416
>Evolutionism is not science; it is science fiction, even a kind of hoax. It is a hoax that has succeeded too well and has imprisoned modern man in what looks like an irreconcilable conflict between "science" and "religion." It has destroyed all faiths that pull mankind up and has substituted a faith that pulls mankind down. "Nil admirari." Chance and necessity and the utilitarian mechanism of natural selection may produce curiosities, improbabilities, atrocities, but nothin to be admired as an achievement--just as winning a prize in a lottery cannot elicit admiration. Nothing is "higher" or "lower"; everything is much of a muchness, even though some things are more complex than others--just by chance. Evolutionism, purporting to explain all and everything solely and exclusively by natural selection for adaptation and survival, is the most extreme product of the materialistic utilitarianism of the nineteenth century. The inability of twentieth century thought to rid itself of this imposture is a failure which may well cause the collapse of Western civilisation. For it is impossible for any civlisation to survive without a faith in meanings and values transcending the ultilitarianism of comfort and survival, in other words without a religious faith.
>"There can be little doubt," observes Martin Lings, 
<that in the modrn world more cases of loss of religious faith are to be traced to the theory of evolution as their immediate cause than to anything else. It is true, surprising as it may seem, that many people still contrive to live out their lives in a tepid and precarious combination of religion and evolutionism. But for the more logically minded, there is no option but to choose between the two, that is, between the doctrine of the fall of man and the "doctrine" of the rise of man, and to reject altogether the one not chosen...
<'Millions of our contemporaries have chosen evolutionism on the grounds that evolution is a "scientifically-proven truth," as many of them were taught it at school; the gulf of understanding between them and religion is widened still further by the fact that the religious man, unless he happens to be a scientist, is unable to make a bridge between himself and them by producing the right initial argument, which must be on the scientific plane.'
>If it is not on the "scientific plane," he will be shouted down, "and reduced to silence by all sorts of scientific jargon." The truth of the matter, however, is that the initial argument must not be on the scientific plane; it must be philosophical. It amounts simply to this: 'that descriptive science becomes unscientific and illegitimate when it indulges in comprehensive explanatory theories which can be neither verified nor disproved by experiment. Such theories are not "science" but "faith."'
>automatic with no room for divine guidance or design
Wasn't Darwin a Christian? I think the most reasonable outlook is that evolution IS the design. 

>"Creation," "divine guidance," and "divine design" are completely outside the possibility of scientific observation.

>illegitimate to claim... evolution "was automatic with no room for divine guidance or design". 
Is he quoting Darwin? As far as I know, Darwin didn't believe this. He was a Christian for most of his life and still believed in God until his death.

>we are asked to believe that inanimate matter is a masterful practitioner of natural selection
Not quite... Most scientists believe life sprang up from inanimate matter, which is different than saying life itself is inanimate matter. 

>For the Doctrine of Evolutionism any possibility, no matter how remote, appears to be acceptable as if it were scientific proof that the thing actually happened:
No, not even close. Like all scientific theories, any reasonable person understands that it's not absolute, and there may be new information that changes our understanding. 
This guy is committing the strawman fallacy because he doesn't like the opposing view. More hubris from Christcucks (distinct from Christians). 

>One can just see it ... nothin to stop the emergence of Shakespeare
Pfft. FYI: Sarcasm can be a sign of cognitive dissonance caused by a lack of a real argument.

>no need to speak of ... any lack of knowledge
Another strawman. No reasonable person would claim our current understanding is perfect. 

This guy is extremely tarded.
Replies: >>3421
>If we present ... Of course, such a view of cosmogenesis is crazy.
This guy seems to think concepts like justice and injustice must necessarily have some kind of divine origin, but that's not true. Even certain animals have displayed quasi-morality, especially chimps. 

>schizophrenic thinking 
LMAO, the irony 

>It is not useful ... who are outside all possibilities of outside observation. 
"Creator, intelligences, or designers" He's anthropomorphizing things that are far beyond our understanding, like a primitive. He's right that these things are beyond the possibility of outside observation, or scientific understanding, but he can't admit that it's beyond religious understanding, too, and that our concept of God is like a cat's concept of mathematics.

>explain phenomena by observable causes ... very fruitful methodological principle. 

>Evolutionism ... excludes the possibility of all higher grades of significance. 
Not true. Not everyone who believes the theory of evolution is an atheist. More strawman arguments. 

>"a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing."
lol, lmao

>This is The Faith, and all contradicting observations have to be either ignored or interpreted in such a way that the Faith is upheld.
Holy shit, the irony is too much. This is exactly what most posts in this thread, even the post I'm replying to, are doing. 

>Evolutionism as currently presented has no basis in science
The theory of evolution, in my dishonest and purposely incorrect presentation of it, has no basis in science.

What a piece of shit. 

>the doctrinaire propagand  ... continues unabated
He's right, most scientists think this way, and it bothers me too. But he's being unfair in painting everyone with the same brush who believe in the theory of evolution. It's kind of like judging Christians by the words and deeds of christcucks. Even though christcucks outnumber Christians, it's still unfair to paint them with the same brush. 

>Douglas Dewar
Wasn't this guy pretty thoroughly debunked?
Replies: >>3421 >>3430
You shouldn't use reddit spacing.
Replies: >>3424














Replies: >>3459
Anon, are you familiar with the phrase, "read the room"?
Replies: >>3428 >>3459
I thought he was an honest poster, but now it seems he's just a shitposter.
Replies: >>3459
Is not morality.
Replies: >>3431 >>3453
Just as a caricature or a faint echo of a man is not the man himself. Art will always be man's signature, while a spider's web is merely what a spider does on instinct.
Replies: >>3453
Obviously, but it shows that some animals are conscious of their relationships with each other and even have a sense of proper conduct
...you say, from instinct
> art
Like bower birds
Replies: >>3456
I'll try to be brief but I venture making a long post (I did end up making a long post; part 1):

>Couldn't this just mean there is no death in heaven? Heaven is perfect, but the lower realms are not. Death is inevitable here in this world, seemingly by design. Things inevitably break. Even the sun will eventually run out of fuel and collapse. 
In Christianity, Heaven and Earth are of the same creation. In Gnosticism the material existence is seen as innately bad while the ethereal is good. In the Book of Revelation, both heaven and earth will be supplanted:
>And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Revelation 21:1
The Earth isn't some eternal realm of testing, and neither is the popular conception of heaven as this good place in the sky where good people go to the sky present. The entire cosmic realm will be renovated by God in the Last Judgement.

>That's an interesting thought, but it seems like you take Genesis literally and only let other ideas slip through the cracks. Don't you think Genesis could be more general in meaning, and that the details don't really matter? Other creation myths have different details, but a similar central meaning as Genesis (you're in a fallen state, your soul is being tested, etc.). The details of the story seem to be made up as a way of conveying this deeper meaning. 
>Is it possible that this is true for Genesis? I believe in the message of Genesis, but not the details: I believe we're in a fallen state, we're being tested, and we did something bad to be here -- but I don't believe Adam and Eve really existed as described in the bible, in fact I think they were invented as a vehicle to explain these difficult concepts in a way ancient people could understand, by personifying and mythologizing the concepts in the form of a story. Is it possible to interpret it this way? I think it's the only way I can believe in and find value in it.
Let me go through the issues with the way you're approaching religion here:
1. It is divorced from the historical character of religious practice. Religious scripture in the pre-modern era was not literature, analyzed for deeper meanings by the world at large. The vast majority of the population was illiterate, and religious works were not read, but preached. If you go to church, that's why there's a liturgy that goes through the entire Bible verse by verse, week by week. It was read out to people that were not learned, and was understood by them at a straightforward level, with commentary given by the priest. Except for scholars, there was no critical analysis, religious scripture was seen to contain factual statements concerning life, the world, and existence. At level it was true could be debated, but there was no psychologization of faith in the light of science because there was no science at the time. Religion was a given for the explanation of the universe, not an expression of the foibles of humanity.
2. Viewing religious narrative as allegory, besides being ahistorical, reduces it to confabulations of the mind. It becomes as the secular German anthropologist Ludwig Feuerbach put it "God is the projection of the human mind, therefore what religion really worships is not God but humankind itself." In this framework no religion has a unique origin apart from any other, they are all the inventions of human creativity, and whether any of them contain access to truth is of philosophical debate. Certainly in this case, none of them are exclusive being sourced from the same origin of humanity, and neither can they be perfect. The progeny of this is relativism, because there is ultimately no backstop as to what values or qualities in people are justified, given that they are all culturally relative. Cultures are in turn shaped by the historical religious practices of a society, so this ends up being a cycle - religion cannot assert truths, truths are culturally relative, culture is shaped by religion, yet religion cannot assert truths. Religions are those truths asserted by a society as coming from special origin independent of the secular world.
3. When you rationalize religious practice, e.g. practitioners of meditation become more mindful because of some physiological effect, it ironically becomes ineffectual. People are clever enough to know that when there's a trick behind it at play, that it's self-manipulation, or copium, or placebo, that there's no mystic source to their feeling, it's just magical thinking. Not that it's right to be an obscurantist and keep people in ignorance, but to know why something is so without the effort of a process of discovery is a source of miseries. In the present we know many things offhand that people of the past would have been able to derive solace in not knowing. 
4. In the fulfillment of religious prophecy, the details are the most important part. When Moses orders the preparation of the ark of the covenant and of the tabernacle in the Book of Exodus, it is described in extremely particular detail because that's what the author (by tradition, Moses) saw as extremely important and wanted to be communicated. Therefore particularities of the creation account like the 7 days, or the 4 rivers, or the order, were included in the scripture in accordance with their gravity.

Lastly, there are two types of theology, though they fall under the same term. It is like the difference between history and historiography, or geology and geography; sometimes it is called a believing theology vs. a non-believing one, the difference being that one immerses itself in the faith whereas the other observes its characteristics from without. If you believe there's any wisdom to be found in religion, you require a believing theology; if you want a secular rational analysis, you want a non-believing one. The two can't be confused, and you can't get the virtues of one from the other. You can't achieve religious insight without religious praxis and you can't effect religious apology unless you are willing to engage criticism at some level. Those that deeply hold the faith are for the most part believers but not critics, for it is their affinity to listen and to reiterate, and that satisfies them. Those who are academic theologians are often critics but not believers, they know their Greek manuscript fragments inside and out and the miscellaneous errata which have come about as a result of transmission and translation, and cannot place their faith for doubt about the autographic message of God. It is rare that men bridge both, and those that do often incline to lean towards heretical doctrines in an attempt to rectify the dissonance of the spheres. What ought to be understood, from my point of view, is that if you hold the same God is in effect from the time of the prophets, to the time of Jesus, to the time of the church, to the present, that the same faith is accessible and effectual regardless of any obstacles that may have accrued on the way. The minutiae are for the faithful, but for the non-believer the gospel message is needed first.
Here's an explanation of the two different types of theologian in relation to the two types of theology:
>...there are basically two meanings of “theologian”. The first is someone who thinks or speculates about God etc. and writes what they think. Such a person is actually religious and tries to describe God (or whatever) as they think he really is. It was in this sense that Evagrius Ponticus, a fourth-century theologian, commented that theologians pray truly and that, if you pray truly, you are a theologian.

>The second meaning of “theologian” is the academic sense and it basically means someone who studies theologians in the former sense. For example, my old tutor is an expert in Duns Scotus, which means he studies Scotus, writes about him, and tries to establish what he believed and why – exactly as a historical philosopher might study Plato or Descartes. But that doesn’t mean he actually agrees with Scotus on anything. Theology in this sense has considerable overlap with history, literary criticism, anthropology, and so on, especially since the people or groups under consideration could be contemporary as well as historical. Clearly you don’t need to have any religious faith at all to do this, any more than you have to be French to study Balzac. 

>The human nous in Eastern Orthodox Christianity is the "eye of the heart or soul" or the "mind of the heart". The soul of man, is created by God in His image, is intelligent and noetic. Saint Thalassius of Syria wrote that God created beings "with a capacity to receive the Spirit and to attain knowledge of Himself; He has brought into existence the senses and sensory perception to serve such beings". Eastern Orthodox Christians hold that God did this by creating mankind with intelligence and noetic faculties.

>Human reasoning is not enough: there will always remain an "irrational residue" which escapes analysis and which can not be expressed in concepts: it is this unknowable depth of things, that which constitutes their true, indefinable essence that also reflects the origin of things in God. In Eastern Christianity it is by faith or intuitive truth that this component of an object’s existence is grasped.

>The human nous was darkened after the Fall of Man (which was the result of the rebellion of reason against the nous), but after the purification (healing or correction) of the nous (achieved through ascetic practices like hesychasm), the human nous (the "eye of the heart") will see God's uncreated Light (and feel God's uncreated love and beauty, at which point the nous will start the unceasing prayer of the heart) and become illuminated, allowing the person to become an orthodox theologian.

Humanity, in pitiful isolation on the Earth, wields moral agency in executive self-awareness and sentience.
Replies: >>3458
>The minutiae are for the faithful, but for the non-believer the gospel message is needed first.
To put it more pithily, to doubt on the details is to miss the forest for the trees.
Replies: >>3458
>>3454 >>3455 >>3456 >>3457
I wasn't expecting an answer this profound. You gave me a lot to think about. Thank you.
I'm the reddit spacer. This (>>3424) isn't me.
[Hide] (66.7KB, 850x400)
[Hide] (58.7KB, 599x382)
[Hide] (405.8KB, 1180x1316)
[Hide] (758.5KB, 1241x1360)
*where good people go present. 
*At what level it was true 

Of course I can't post without mistakes. This gives me a chance to criticize a fence-sitting pipedream though: that of a "cultural Christianity" or even a "Christian atheism", and desecralized religion in the general. It's a case of wanting to eat your cake and have it too, and has no foundation. One of the critical features of all religion is tackling the meaning of human death and suffering, that there are qualities which are worthwhile for human beings to place their faith in and even to die for because they transcend the material life and world and aspire towards a deeper fundamental reality. In the inclination to deny God, and faith, and contemplative introspection as a source of knowledge, a worldview is engendered which lacks anything which gives human life meaning. Our morals, and ethics, and values, are not things which can be directly observed but maxims held on faith whose virtue comes through practice. Without faith that these qualities have some immutability to them, whether through God or some other transcendent source, they are just fallible speculations not worth upholding since the world ends with human death. A culture is but the sum of the constituent ideas held by a society, so just the same if its values are perishable as its people are perishable, the whole is ephemeral. After unwittingly generating a milieu where nothing is sacred and all is incredulous, you have these desperate atheists trying to draw water from the river of culture to put out the fire of the postmodern when they dammed the source from which it flowed through the good faith of many, which they held on irrational grounds, that the overall body may consist though the individual may not profit, or even perish. Culture without religion is terminal. To embrace a culture while spurning the religion it was shaped by is to embrace nothing at all. After enthusiastically kicking away at the platform holding them up, they've belatedly realized that they've been set in a gallows which is about to hang their personas in the court of public opinion with the plank which is about to give way being their only preservation from mob deposition.
Replies: >>3463 >>3480 >>3571
Or, that to want the ethics yielded by religion without the religion, as much as it may be desired, doesn't make any sense since the former is a distinct output of the latter.
Replies: >>3512
Considering everything from Noah's Ark and onwards has been proven to be literal truth, why would the creation account be metaphorical? 
Jesus said Adam was first. Evolutionary christians need to wake up. Nothing in the Atheism mythology makes any sense, and they admit it doesn't. So, what more do you want.
Is it true that Dawkins and many if not most others of his kind had a poor relationship with their father?
Replies: >>3482
He said he was molested by some sort of schoolteacher, but he doesn't seem to have a poor relationship with his parents.
Replies: >>3571
Most people don't think about moral ontology.
What scripture says that Cain resorted to incest to produce offspring?
Replies: >>3915

lol London's filled with Muslims now. They even have no go zones now for them And who can forget the Rotterdam scandals

that's probably why he's so nihilistic. People that experience that either become disbelieving or gay 

PS it's the reason most jews are the way they are. Child abuse has been happening in kosher environment for thousands of years. It's a form of mind control actually
Replies: >>4021
The Holy Bible
Replies: >>4234
>disbelieving or gay
Why does it even "work" like that?

I've seen people note that in Genesis 1 the sun is not created until the fourth day. So how do we have "days" before then?  So they say clearly it's not literal after all for ancient people "a day" literally meant the sun moving around the Earth. Ancient people only understood a day as related to the sun since they didn't think the Earth rotated. Why then would ancient people write "days" before the sun was created. In their mind there was no such thing as "a day" without the sun.

Of course there is also light before the sun. There's evenings and mornings. God is the light as he is the light in Heaven. The sun was just a replacement so he didn't have to remain there. But did ancient people think that God was flying around the Earth to create mornings and evenings before he created the sun? Sure it could have just been a super natural thing, mornings and evenings before the sun. Their were days before the sun because that's just how it was.

But I think this proves either the ancient Jews knew "a day" actually meant the Earth rotating and had nothing to do with the sun or Moses simply wrote what God through him wrote regardless of whether it made sense to him.

To us it's 6 rotations of the Earth but for ancient people it had to be 6 times morning and night came. I just think if I'm making up a creation story thousands of years ago I probably would add the sun first before talking about days.
Replies: >>4210 >>4707
[Hide] (67.5KB, 600x350)
>Sure it could have just been a super natural thing, mornings and evenings before the sun. There were days before the sun because that's just how it was.
The Tabor Light, the uncreated light of God, being that He was immediately present during the creation, could be one explanation from a Christian perspective on this matter. What the Jewish one is, you'd have to ask Jews.
Replies: >>4212
What I'm saying is why on Earth does Earth have days before the sun. Mornings and evenings. "Let there be light" if the light is coming directly from God did the Jews think God was flying around the Earth to create morning and night for the first few days.
Genesis 1 makes the most sense if the writer knew that "a day" means the Earth's rotation and not the sun going around the Earth. It makes sense to the point it has to be a true literal account.
Whereas people have claimed the creation account is metaphorical because "days before the sun is stupid" it's a real argument I've seen but I think "days before the sun" proves the reality of Genesis 1.
Replies: >>4213
Why couldn't God just brighten the ambient lighting and then dim it during the night? There is light at night, it's just less.
Replies: >>4215
I would assume he always remained the same brightness, he was like the sun and the Earth was rotating in front of him, which created the first 4 days.
But if an ancient Jewish person was making this all up or trying to be poetic I just don't know why he would have 4 days before the sun since to him "a day" literally meant the sun revolving around the Earth, unless he knew the Earth rotated.
He could have thought the way you described and God dimmed and brightened the light in 24 hour periods before creating the sun.
So never? Okay.
[Hide] (2.6MB, 4032x3024)
[Hide] (105.2KB, 900x477)
For a flood burial 4500 years ago this is extremely good condition. Colour has been preserved as well as its stomach contents. Most mummified dinosaurs and dinosaur tissue is flattened but Nodosaur is perky still looking very dragon like. I would say this might be one of the best natural preservations of any animal ever. Looks like he died with dignity, not arched back choking on mud like some loser or in some screaming horrified gangley position, in other words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F82syKGh2Ds

“N-n-no he just slipped on a banana peel and fell upside down into a lake that maybe existed at some point and then hit the lake bed so hard it buried himself and preserved him for 110 million years.”
I don't know how evolutionist can keep a straight face anymore saying these things going against all scientific knowledge and dating methods. Well probably not a straight face, more like a crying angry wojack face.
Replies: >>5916
>God is the light as he is the light in Heaven.
I'm not sure if you're expressing your own view or trying to project what the ancients might have believed, but God our Lord is a spirit, and not something that can be seen or move around or dim, as would a lamp or the Sun. The glory of the Lord fills Heaven and earth, now as it did at the moment of Creation, but invisibly and eternally.
I understand your argument though and I generically agree.
Replies: >>4717
I'm pretty sure the light in Heaven comes from God and the light at the beginning of creation comes from God. He produces light just as he can produce anything.

I'm not sure what you mean that God can't be seen or move I'm pretty sure he can be seen, you'd die but he can be seen and move around what exactly he is I don't know, no one knows I'm not even sure I'd call him a spirit either.
>In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say.

Darwinism says this would take millions of years though random mutation.

Thus by having a single lizard type on the Arc and then it spreading around the world, it would quickly adapt to the various environments forming all the lizards we see today quite quickly. Same for the felines, dogs, etc. Millions of years not needed.
Replies: >>4725 >>4733 >>4740
[Hide] (469.7KB, 911x9073)
[Hide] (315.5KB, 883x1948)
You wouldn't need one lizard type on the Ark anyways. The Ark was huge.
I think if this a an actual case of rapid evolution it does go to show like always that animals do not evolve outside of their kind, they never seem to rapidly evolve into different creatures but just variations of what they are.
Replies: >>4731
Reading some of the ass-backward logic here is entertaining. It's the stupidity of the average christian that drives normal people away. On average christians have an IQ of 85, just 5 points above niggers, and in times like this it really shows. Fucking christniggers.
Replies: >>4732 >>4733
Yes having more than one single type of lizard would be better to faster recolonize the world. But the main idea being that  we wouldn't need all the lizards we have nowadays already existent in the ark because adaptation to environment is fast. So you can have young earth and the ark lizards becoming every variety we see today because it only takes decades not millions of years.
As to them not morphing into other types of creatures, that is also true, they only morph within their mould. This fast adaptation also shows they already have all the genetic material needed in dormant stage to fit every environment.   It wouldnt make sense that the lizard in the article formed new and useful genes so fast by chance, he had them already. 
This was already evidenced in bacteria experiments, where they gained new abilities, not by evolving but by shedding genes thus activating other genes they already had.
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness."
Good thing you are so smart, we are in need of intelligence, explain this link >>4724 using the darwinist model.
If i wrote in my highschool biology exam about evolution that a lizard evolved like that in a few decades the teacher would flunk me.
Replies: >>4740
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,   And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 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: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2 Peter 3:3-6

People always say in the end times scoffers will deny the creation and the flood or creation from nothing but Peter never says people will deny just creation by God. He says scoffers will deny the traditional age by creation.
“that by the word of God the heavens were of old”. Some might think he's saying they'll deny that the age is old and therefore the opposite of what he said is now true. And dumb modern translations can assume this aswell. But he is saying BY the word of God the heavens were of old in other words they are denying that it is as old as it is said to have been created by the word of God, Jesus. It is God who made our universe and it is of the age he made it, 6000 years which indeed a long time however now people believe in a different creation to make it a different kind of old which has been shoved down their throats until it literally changes their brain chemistry at an impressionable age, a fairy tail age of “billions of years” and therefore humans are so unimportant when really this universe is all about us.
Since our ancestors died things are still continuing as they were from the beginning. They are ignorant of the fact that in the ancient past God created this world and destroyed it with water. The Flood is a huge event in the Bible referenced all the time and referenced by every culture in the world it is very serious to remember God destroyed everything to start over.
I think the article is a bit sensational. Moving five pairs of lizards to an island already creates something that is known as the founder effect. There's a dramatic diminution of genetic diversity that can lead to a distinctively different population developing, especially with new pressures in the environment. Natural selection is conservative most of the time, but when things are put in a new environment, obviously changes can occur. I would hardly class this above microevolution, and it is totally compatible with either a Darwinist or a Creationist model.
Replies: >>4743 >>4767
I remember it being written that with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. Couldn't our understanding of creation be skewed by our limited understanding of the divine?
Replies: >>4751 >>4752 >>6241
Rapid change can happen in a short time, as >>4740 pointed out, you christnigger larper
Replies: >>4767
[Hide] (2.5MB, 833x1463)
I would say no, not in that sense, because our understanding of Creation is not limited in such a way. Saint Moses could have been told just as easily that the making of heaven and earth took 14 thousand thousand millennia, or simply an indefinitely long span of time.
The ancient Gentiles were familiar both with the concept of a chaotic nature producing ever more developed forms, and with the world having existed for absurdly long ages.
But the "human limitations" argument works in reverse, taking the seven days as a humanly workable description of what factually was a simultaneous creation of everything (to agree with the Ecclesiasticus XVIII, 1), something which would truly surpass our understanding.
The thousand years being as one day verses also work nicely with the world having taken six days to make plus one, and having lasted about six thousand years until now.

That said I can't blame anyone for believing in Old Earth, but to hold it you have to take a large part of Scripture and file it under allegory, I don't see how any literal interpretation works.
Replies: >>6241
As far as I see it, the days that are happening now are exactly the same as the days that God was measuring out in Genesis. From verse 14 of Genesis 1 onward as well, we of course have God create the normal facets of our reality that govern the days and the years. There's no indication that they are anything but literal 24-hour days. Peter was talking in a slightly different context as well when he made that statement about a day for the Lord being a thousand years. I think Peter is just saying here that time is of no concern for God. God could have created everything simultaneously, but did it in accordance with 24-hour periods for our own benefit and reflection.
Replies: >>4753 >>6241
To be fair to the not-actually-24-hours-days side, it is noteworthy that the seventh day begins, but does not explicitly end.
Replies: >>4756 >>6241
My guess would be there is no need to talk about the end of the seventh day because God rested and created nothing new that day, and that the cycle of the week was completed. That's an interesting observation though, I hadn't noticed it before.
Replies: >>6241
another example.
This time its not 5 pairs, but the entire native population quickly acquiring new feet.
Again, super fast contradicting the 'random mutation through milleniums' normal explanation. 
Also i dont see why in the other example, them being 5 pairs explains them getting the needed characteristics for that environment in an instant. Them having less genetic variety should make it harder to adapt. Instead of being a huge population of lizards mutating where one could by chance get the good mutation,  here we have  only 5 pairs, and they immediately get the needed adaptation.
Replies: >>4778
>Them having less genetic variety should make it harder to adapt. Instead of being a huge population of lizards mutating where one could by chance get the good mutation,  here we have  only 5 pairs, and they immediately get the needed adaptation.
There's a good chance the initial mutation is recessive, and being unique in a large population with relatively little incest will never get repeated. A small number of pairs will allow the founder of the mutation's descendants to interbreed and pair the unique chromosome with itself, thereby creating an offspring that expresses the mutation. Importantly, this first example of the active mutation will have close relatives that are carrying (dormant) the mutation to use it's superior adaptation to breed with rather than breeding with unrelated non-carriers.
>>2178 (OP) 
Catholic subhumans are the reason "evolutionism" is taught in schools
Replies: >>5248
[Hide] (1.2MB, 720x480, 00:11)
I think there's irony in calling evolutionist christians subhumans.

Replies: >>5263
Kent Hovind is a hero. My favorite debate of his is when they deployed 'three' evolutionists to debunk him a debate and he made fools of them all. 
Jesus clearly implies Moses wrote certain scriptures. Likely Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers Deuteronomy. He was alive and there to write about these things. Genesis itself I think claims to be different books stitched together with verses concluding where each book ends:
2:4 Generations of God
5:1 Book of Adam
6:9 Generations of Noah
10:1 Generations of the sons of Noah
10:32 Generations of the sons of Noah after the flood.
11:10 Generations of Shem
11:27 Generations of Terah
25:12 Generations of Ishmael Abraham's son
25:19 Generations of Isaac Abraham's son
36:1 Generations of Esau who is Edom
36:9 Generations of Esau father of the Edomites
37:2 Generations of Jacob

And Moses stitched them together. Before 2:4 God is referred to as "God" where as after 2:4 he's referred to as The Lord God. Elohim to Adonai Elohim. I don't know if this is suppose to imply God himself wrote the beginning. I think Adam wrote the next book and unlike the other "Generations" Moses makes it clear this was "the book of Adam." Probably because it's very cool that Adam wrote a book. Adam lived for 900 years and he could talk from day one. God preloaded him with who knows what information. What did he do for 900 years? I'd guess he'd write a book of what happened. All the other "Generations of so and so" imply where that person's personal account ends. These accounts get very specific in detail. So JEPD I think is ridiculous and requires a serious college degree to come up with something that stupid. "But it's rational! be reasonable! be reasonable!" The story of Abraham I think has already been proven to have been written by first hand accounts or contemporary authors.

I think Genesis is first hand accounts. Early people were not stupid, they could write their own diaries and have them copied and kept like anything in people's packs on their camels as the Jews moved around and traded texts until Moses collected and complied them or Moses got them from the Libraries in Egypt. How Genesis came to be is important and would probably answer all questions about its interpretation.
Replies: >>5827
>Adam wrote a book. Adam lived for 900 years and he could talk from day one. God preloaded him with who knows what information.

interesting, i wonder what he knew.
Replies: >>6022
The evolutionist who claim to be christian (and they might be) I am concerned that they can be deceived in this way, they can believe something as long as they are told over and over by Atheists, without evidence or even rationality, tricked with lies. Because they want to be "smart" and "smart" people believe evolution ooooh, I've been told smart "experts" believe evolution so it must be true.

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
I Corinthians 3:18

I believed in evolution completely fooled. But the moment you really look into it it's obviously not true, it's obvious the Earth is 6000 years old, that's what all the methods tells us and that's what the Bible says, clearly. You can try to force your evolution in it but it just doesn't work, at all. The nerve people have to just openly lie and breathe lies to encourage these things invented by racist people like Darwin. God didn't hide the secrets of our origins for terrible people to discover.
It's impossible to convince an evolutionist to think, because all his life thinking was done for him by wicked people, a wicked system, that he'll later admit is a wicked system but he'll keep the fantasy of evolution.
Replies: >>5918
[Hide] (169.6KB, 657x900)
Replies: >>5917
>I don't know how evolutionist can keep a straight face anymore

well when you believe that two rocks collided and created the universe i imagine its not hard
the Goat of Mendes?
[Hide] (222.4KB, 640x480)
This is evolutionist's view of the depth of human life and all existence in a nutshell.
[Hide] (983.4KB, 858x1821)
[Hide] (904.5KB, 1582x2048)
According to the Masoretic manuscripts, the earth was created roughly 4000 BC. This seems a little too late though, as we seem to have a good idea of what happened in this period from archeological evidence, specifically in Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Septuagint, the Bible of the early Church, puts creation around 5500 BC, in the 6th millennium. Worth noting that they seem to have no clue what happened in this period, and human civilization magically appeared over the next few thousand years. Pushing things back to the sixth millennium gives us a pretty good amount of space for the pre-flood world and everything after that. Everything else scientists say is based off unprovable presuppositions that shape their interpretations, and it’s not scientific.
>orthofahs brag about this
Replies: >>5934
[Hide] (248.1KB, 500x749)
I’m a bit sad how many pro-evolutionist Orthodox there are, especially among the clergy. I know a few other people in Orthodoxy who are young earth creationists though. Seraphim Rose even wrote an entire 1000+ page book on Genesis and against evolution and modern science that makes modernists seethe
Define heaven here
>guess creationists believe in evolution. Neat
Microevolution isn't macroevolution
The heaven in the book of revelation refers to the sky (and space, if you believe in it) most likely. It's part of the material world that will pass away
[Hide] (5.6MB, 1280x720, 00:20)
>not posting the superior version
Replies: >>5973
that was badass ngl
[Hide] (15.4MB, 1280x720, 00:57)
This post is dedicated to AntichristHaterFortnitePlayer69 because of this post that he made >>5827 remarking on the pre-loading of Adam and because he's a gamer who will understand this crazy theory that I'm about to conjecture on how the seven day creation is possible:

So I've had this thought going on for a while about how God created the plane of existence that comes from a digital media perspective and I'm going to post it here since the world has had worst theories. Essentially, this is the conjecture: God pre-programmed the creation and the seven day narrative is just him rendering the elements into reality. The analogy is about to get cringe so I'll spoiler it: to start off, he loads up the physics engine. On the first day, the real time dynamic lighting is instantiated. On the second day, he renders the skybox. The third day, the procedural terrain generation is run, the fourth day, the day-night cycle is implemented, and so on with the plants, the animals, and humanity. The reason they're out of order from the materialist point of view is that they aren't brought into existence after the requirements of physical chronology, but by their precedence in God's design. It's like when you load up a game and the more important elements to the player render first, not by whatever the internal game chronology considers to be primordial. This is a fundamentally anti-materialist theory because it provides a basis for truths that are viable outside of the empirically observable world. If human existence were entirely based in Minecraft, the materialist argument would be that the world generated itself according to eternally preset physical laws, and the idea that some guy named Notch was the architect of the whole thing would just be inconceivable because it could not be proven from the confines of the internal game logic. Yet we know that simulated sub-worlds can exist by the generation of our own hand, whose mechanics can be completely different from our own. So is it not just as possible that our world was generated after such a manner by a sublime architect whose creative powers far transcend our capacity to understand, yet He put in us some part after His own nature, such that by even the little powers within us we have imaginations by which we can work wonders when we reconcile to His will by the Holy Spirit which was bestowed to mankind after His incarnation in Jesus Christ.

However this is probably the stupidest theological thing I've ever said that falls into the category of Prot-tier exegesis so I understand if you guys will throw me into Gehenna for this.
Replies: >>6046 >>6240
interesting lol
Replies: >>6054
Hey AntichristHater69. I've told you the depressing truth about Fortnite the other day, but there's another cool game that's NOT owned by the antiChrist. It has many crazy weapons like Fortnite and you can build stuff like in Fortnite too. It's called "Terraria". And also its developer is probably a Christian (because he put a Bible quote in the credits of another game he made)

Maybe, just maybe, one day I'll see you using the "AntichristHaterTerrariaPlayer69" name here.
Replies: >>6065 >>6069
very cool
How is Fornite connected to the anti-christ?
Replies: >>6080
It's owned by Epic, which is owned by Tencent, which is connected to the Chinese Communist Party as all Chinese mainland businesses basically are required to be to operate.
Replies: >>6081
How is Communist China connected to the anit-christ?
Replies: >>6083 >>6087 >>6088
thats how
Replies: >>6088 >>6151
Communism is of the devil
Replies: >>6088 >>6151
It's barely Communist by now, though.  As a friend put it, it's a soy sauce-flavored brand of fascism with a coat of red paint.
Replies: >>6089 >>6091 >>6108
They never got rid of the godless materialistic part of communism though. They force churches to hang portraits of Xi Jinping at the altar. They didn't improve spiritually at all in their rebranding from Maoism to "Communism with Chinese Characteristics".
[Hide] (181.2KB, 1920x1080)
its complex, theyre still communist tho, most people just dont understand the flavor of communism they go by

read this if youre interested: https://www.mediafire.com/file/qu9lfuf571aefpi/Fascist_Corporatism_VS_Communist_Corporatism.txt/file
Replies: >>6092
Replies: >>6111
[Hide] (610.2KB, 479x559)
Communism and capitalism are two sides of the same thing. The end-goal is technocracy and industrialism. As another said, China is just as communistic as ever in their idolatry of their leaders and in their godless materialistic philosophy. Remember too that capitalism is seen as a necessary stage of development in the orthodox Marxist scheme of history too.
Replies: >>6112
[Hide] (2MB, 2220x1248)
The devil couldn't be laughing harder tricking Atheists into believing they're monkies and they are so desperate to prove they are monkies. It's like poetry it rhymes. Planet of the Apes is actual lore to the Atheist. I'd love to meet one of these monkey men, oh but I guess they all died out unlike the much dumber regular monkies, or the monkey men evolved out of existence. Whatever is more convenient.
The more you think about monkey men the funnier it gets.
Replies: >>6113
just realized that they changed the title to "communist capitalism" but didnt change the actual document lol
[Hide] (75.5KB, 1024x742)
without God all things can be made bad.
And thats an interesting point about how Marx believed capitalism was a necessary part of human economic development.
everything atheists believe is ridiculous yet somehow we're the fools.

Atheism is a prime example of how people will believe anything if you teach it to them young, and thats another thing, why do schools teach atheism? Shouldnt they be unbiased when it comes that kind of thing?
Replies: >>6117
Atheism presents itself as unbiased. Sciences being the ultimate universal laws that anyone can prove with research.
Replies: >>6127 >>6140
The Sahara's wet period ended about 4,000 years ago. Well I wonder what could have caused that, what event is known to have happened around that time. I wonder what could have caused whale bones to be laying on top of the sand in the desert. The pre-flood world was all tropical green so it's possible that the Sahara also had lakes but the many many giant marine bones in the desert clearly come from them being just thrown there, laying on top of the sand or an inch beneath it.

There's also slowly more evidence that the Eye of the Sahara was Atlantis. Atlantis descriptions match the pre-flood tropical and weird world and it's likely it was the most massive pre-flood city and therefore there could be many interesting things buried there if real excavation was done there. Post-flood caused massive changes in deserts and frozen wastelands.
doesnt seem right that they would teach THEORIES as fact in school. Needs to be changed
Much of science relies on unproveable philosophical assumptions that ungird the method, especially in historical sciences that deal with past events that untestable and unrepeatable.
Replies: >>6145
The stupid part is that the only reason science is science is that it's fallible by definition (as per philosopher of science Karl Popper), but they never teach that. So it becomes viewed in the popular conscience as a replacement for religion and philosophy when it literally isn't able to be ultimate proof of anything, as if you do assert science as truth in and of itself you commit the logical fallacy of induction. If you view the natural sciences as the fallible observations of man and theology as the infallible revelations of God, they comprise a healthy composite.
There was a book about how Karl Marx was philosophically a satanist, i think it was called the devil and karl marx. Then there is all the churches that were taken down in the USSR. However do you have better evidence that communism is satanic or is part of the plant to unite the world in global government for the anti-christ? The Bible says that in the apocalypse you will need to take the mark to buy and sell, so the global government will be capitalist.
Replies: >>6152
>The Bible says that in the apocalypse you will need to take the mark to buy and sell, so the global government will be capitalist.

Communist Capitalism, its basically a form of Communism where the government takes over and has full control over the corporations and economy and they use the corporations as a more efficient version of state run factories/as a more sublime means of control that raises less eyebrows. Atleast thats my theory.

Even without CapCom its still possible for a communist government to control ones ability to engage in the market, in Soviet Russia if you were dissident or didnt go to work that day you couldnt access food. Thats the nature of State run/controlled economies.
Also important to note: The book of genesis uses the word "יוֹם" (Yom) to describe each of the "days" in which the earth is created. Yom can mean day, but it also means year, length of time, and epoch (see how Jewish holidays always have "Yom" in their name).

When the bible was translated in English, translators used the word "day" instead of Yom to draw a paralell between the six days of creation and the six days of work that precede the Sabbath. Unfortunately, English monolinguals read this and interpreted the "six days" of creation literally.
Replies: >>6241 >>6242 >>6252
Replies: >>6242
Everyone knows the gap theory and the day age theories and it just doesn't make sense. The idea that the Earth is older than 6,000 is against what we know anyways, I'd say it's well proven the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Of course if the days are meant to be "long periods of time" Genesis 1 makes no sense. God created plants over a long period of time and then the sun over the next long period of time? It just becomes weird and if you want to kowtow to evolution it just doesn't work. It doesn't add up, not just because death came into the world through sin. God said in the ten commandments he created the Earth in 6 days, I believe him.
The only reason people don't want to believe is because in the 1800s you start having the real push that the Earth is millions of years old and had to be formed slowly over time for whatever reason.
I don't even think there's an example of the Hebrew word for day being used in that sense ever. Yes "days" can be used metaphorically in any language, there's really no reason to believe that's the case for Genesis 1.

You do not have to try to conform to what Atheists believe.
Replies: >>6288 >>6294
Incorrect. Many of the Church Fathers indeed believed in a literal six day creation. It is the natural reading, and it has centuries of tradition behind it.
It's like, how can you believe God has the power to control space to create the universe but doesn't have the power to compress time. If you believe God can create the universe the time part shouldn't matter, and he did it in seven days for a reason.
Replies: >>6294
>The idea that the Earth is older than 6,000 is against what we know anyways, I'd say it's well proven the Earth is 6,000 years old.
If you understand the natural processes of the world and how they work you can use simple mathematics to deduce that the earth is much older than 6,000 years. For instance, if you measure the pressure between the continental plates, and  how much they move each year, you can calculate how much the world's mountain ranges will rise each year (before erosion, of course). Measuring the current height of the mountains and then using your rate of change you deduced earlier, one will find that most mountain ranges are in the millions of years old. You can use this same technique on coral reefs, erosion, stalactites, crystals, petrified wood, the speed of light from stars and many other natural processes that we know the speed of. Radioactive decay is the most used method of dating ancient objects because atoms decay at a fairly fixed rate (in contrast to geological and biological systems). Although none of the above examples are 100% accurate, they can give use a rough approximation.

>You do not have to try to conform to what Atheists believe.
It's not about conforming to atheists, its about accepting facts that we can observe and calculate with our own eyes. The faith / science dichotomy is false and used by anti-theists to Strawman Christianity as "anti-science". 

That's exactly my point. The "days" of creation don't conform to the 24-days that we humans experience.
Replies: >>6298 >>6299 >>6463
[Hide] (68.9KB, 615x589)
>That's exactly my point. The "days" of creation don't conform to the 24-days that we humans experience.
And I'm saying that God can fit it within 24 normal human hours if He liked, because he is the Lord of space-time. Billions of years could pass if he was operating by relativistic physics.
[Hide] (106.5KB, 550x794)
[Hide] (1MB, 1072x1812)
Your entire post relies on the unproven presupposition that the laws of nature have always functioned as they do now in a uniform fashion, making you posit then that everything happened over billions of years—something that is disproven by Scripture, which shows us that the laws of nature have been far from uniform and indeed have radically altered with the Fall in particular. Thus scientists have no basis for scientific inquiry into the pre-Fall world, there’s no way to do induction. It’s beyond science. And then there is the presupposition that the past even goes back millions or billions of years. The Bible doesn’t say this. All of their science and everything you appeal to is completely baseless and fruitless. The wisdom of this world is truly foolishness with God.

> its about accepting facts that we can observe and calculate with our own eyes
You confuse historical science (which is pseudoscience like evolution, etc.) with operational science, which is actually empirical, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. All facts are interpreted within a paradigm, and anything not founded on the bedrock of Scripture is inherently flawed, leading to the atheistic materialist worldview of modern science.

> The faith / science dichotomy is false and used by anti-theists to Strawman Christianity as "anti-science". 
Christianity is anti-science when it is not founded on Scripture and delves into all sorts of nonsense like evolution, abiogenesis, etc.
Replies: >>6467
Age of the Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmM8Ne9e9-o
Radiometric dating: https://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=3AomTKRLB_4
Monkey men: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBDTVBBb7iE
Evolution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHRYnm_J4ts
Dinosaurs 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs-DztE8cq0
Dinosaurs 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF7qOciAu04
Dinosaurs 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AThj-0xp-tw
Dinosaurs 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGYtI6XsrVs
Dinosaurs 5: https://www.newgeology.us/presentation48.html
Dinosaurs 6: https://crev.info/2020/02/desperation-to-keep-dinosaur-soft-tissue-old/
Dinosaurs 7: https://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/
Soft tissue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCDHDaSvP8Y
Noah's flood: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc9II-XY12g
Noah's flood:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOcndUvedGc
Stratification: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFST2C32hMQ
Geological column: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0imsTv5Ez4
Geological column: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7dtuA5UNSo
Plate tectonics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd5-dHxOQhg
Formation of the Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W4vIi3xbKI
The Sun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH0JkTA2hCM
Star light:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQWJj8-lfAk
Gold:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Origin
Big bang: https://crev.info/2022/01/antimatter-problem-still-defies-natural-explanation/
Outer space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V58ma6ykP0
Creation overview 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWxgSGE3rWU
Creation overview 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shyI-aQaXD0
Creation overview 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbqtPqnOA_c
Creation overview 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrkYDzILgtA
Creation overview 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_OlX7M5MLA
Creation overview 6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN31FCcUlLk
Creation overview 7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfffRl4RT4s
Creation overview 8: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cEUXYlc-Q0
Creation Overview 9: https://archive.org/details/CreationSeminarKentHovind/Creation+Seminar+2+-+Kent+Hovind+-+Garden+of+Eden+(FULL).mp4
Creation Overview 10: https://archive.org/details/CreationSeminarKentHovind/Creation+Seminar+3+-+Kent+Hovind+-+Dinosaurs+(FULL).mp4
Creation Overview 11: https://archive.org/details/CreationSeminarKentHovind/Creation+Seminar+4+-+Kent+Hovind+-+Lies+In+The+Textbooks+(FULL).mp4
Creation Overview 12: https://archive.org/details/CreationSeminarKentHovind/Creation+Seminar+5+The+Dangers+Of+Evolution+(This+Is+Why+He's+In+Prison).mp4
Creation Overview 13: https://archive.org/details/CreationSeminarKentHovind/Creation+Seminar+6+-+Kent+Hovind+-+Hovind+Theory+(FULL).mp4
Origin of Races: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KM1ANWbrIY
Origin of Nations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or8k0osSrY0
Ancient history 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnrwdccKv8A
Ancient history 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hUgy5SrYAs
Ancient history 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu1mUSqGHwU 
Ancient history 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jH-q2U3qjs
Replies: >>6469 >>9515
*Slaps 'Proudly Pagan' sticker on bumper* mmmhmm. *Tips trucker hat* “Yes sir I do now rightly believe asteroids did carry water to this here Earth yes sir I reckon! Missing all the other plants I do say so sir! Bananas and this here old cow do indeed I say do indeed sir have a uh common ancestory I say!” *spits in spittoon* *plays banjo* “Yeeehaw! Ain't no science gonna make a fool outta me yes sir I do believe in my saviour Charlie Darwinian yessum! Boy now get me my shootin' rifle we got us one of dem sciencey folk 'round here! Time, space and matter all the very formal here laws are of a random uh coincidence sir and we don't take kindly to thinking-folk 'round these parts, I say I say now I trust in what I've been a told and have no reason to be one of which dem thinking man I reckon. Now if you uh 'scuse me sir I'se needs to get back to my porn and topics of racial importeance yes sir.”

If you believe the Sun and Earth formed themselves out of dust, you need help.
If you believe you came from a rock and are related to potatoes, you need serious help.
If you know someone suffering from paganism, call the number on your screen, don't wait.

A message from Christians: We're here to help.

That's it I'm finished. I'm done with genesis science. I never need to see it again. I never want to hear anything about it again. Just remember, only trust Christians for truth and information. Don't listen to a word from people who think a turtle shell evolved one cell at a time by accident. Don't listen to people who have different religious views like Atheism mythology. Now I never want to see it again.
Replies: >>6466
>and are related to potatoes, you need serious help.
But what about the Irish?
Replies: >>6469
>Your entire post relies on the unproven presupposition that the laws of nature have always functioned as they do now in a uniform fashion, making you posit then that everything happened over billions of year
Actually, it's rather well proven Anon. Unlike other sciences, the science of Astronomy can literally back into the distant past. We can measure conditions in the early universe, and conditions nearby today using the same 'measuring rods', and in every case the laws of physics have remained unchanged within the observable limits of the universe (~13.2-13.3 GYa, and we're edging ever closer.)

>something that is disproven by Scripture, which shows us that the laws of nature have been far from uniform and indeed have radically altered with the Fall in particular.
Actually it's quite the opposite, once again. Scripture plainly states that the laws of physics are unchanging, even comparing them to the immutable nature of God Himself.
Replies: >>6471 >>6474
[Hide] (244.8KB, 496x273)
Although if anyone has anything else to add that's be great, I'm forever just going to give a wall of links to people. People have their entire lives dedicated to creation science, go look at the stuff or don't and that's all there is. You there reading this you ain't no scientist, you ain't making no experiments and observations. So you can believe Christian scientist or Atheist scientist and don't think there's not agendas going around. People choose what they believe. God didn't just allow a racist godless man like Charles Darwin to finally discover the truth!
Everything in evolution is backwards to the Bible:
Young Earth / Old Earth
Earth beings covered with water / Earth begins as hot magma ball
Oceans first land second / Land first oceans second
Earth before Sun / Sun before Earth
Animals reproduce their own kind / Animals change kinds
Man brings death into the world / Death brings man into the world
Why do you think that is? Who could be behind this idea? Hmmmm.


Replies: >>6478
Again, your so-called 'scientific' assumptions are based on the unproven presupposition that the past even goes back 13 billion years, which is non-Biblical and is only reachable on the conclusion that the God-breathed Scriptures are wrong and that the laws of nature have functioned in the same way since the beginning of time, which would make it possible to do the sort of induction required to even make predictions and hypotheses about the past in the first place. This is completely flawed. You are brainwashed by atheistic naturalists and are not viewing things through the lens of Scripture.

>Scripture plainly states that the laws of physics are unchanging
The Bible clearly teaches that the entire creation has been 'subjected to futility' (Romans 8:20) on the account of the fall, in hope, and this is clearly referring to the corruption of nature and its bondage under sin. Genesis 3:17 also makes it clear that God cursed the earth for the sake of Adam, which is clearly tied to the subjection to futility and bondage of sin. The creation became corrupted and distorted, radically unlike anything we have experienced today, as before that it was a world without death, a world in which there was no sin, a world in which there was harmony and communion with God, and even Adam and the animals interacted harmoniously, only eating of the plants, and not behaving in any sense like how animals of today do. According to the teachings of the Church Fathers on Genesis 1-3, the Fall brought about a cosmic cataclysm which radically changed the nature of the world from its more-perfect pre-Fall state. Thus, since we do not have access to the nature of this pre-Fall world, and since we know that it was radically different, without death, without corruption, not subjected to futility and bondage to sin, then it is becomes impossible to make scientific predictions regarding the nature of this world, as there is no uniformitarian basis for induction, which in necessarily for any sort of scientific inquiry at all. There have even been interpretations that seasons did not begin on earth prior to the post-Flood period on the basis of Genesis 8. This is a radically different world we are dealing with here, and you are trying to square imperfect and mutable science with the God-breathed and inspired Scriptures. It just will not work. The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
Replies: >>6501
The size of the universe is not going to tell you its age, even if we knew the size. We do not see a progressively "younger universe" as we look out into space. the Hubble Telescope was originally suppose to see far enough to see "young galaxies forming" from the past and it didn't. In a few months the JWST will look out and send back pictures, I have a feeling it still won't see "young galaxies forming" nor the "beginning of the universe" as they hope.
In fact you yourself are saying that things have remained unchanged within the observable universe which is a large assumption but yes the further we look out we see things haven't changed. They didn't grow into position, they were all placed there, instantly. Stars can't create themselves, no one has ever seen it, but we see stars die all the time. EVERYTHING was created as is and is now in decline, dying down. It was placed here all at once and is now running down. God didn't wait billions of years to slowly create things.

"But we can see star light from billions of light years away! That means the light was travelling for billions of years."
Even if they are billions of light years away which is not actually a simple thing to calculate, when God created Adam did he make him a baby first? He made everything mature. When he made Adam and Eve he wanted them to see the stars, he didn't wait for the light to get there over billions of years. He made it as is and then as the Bible says he stretched out the Heavens, that's the "Dark energy" that they just can't figure out, what's causing the universe to expand faster than the speed of light (possibly, though I don't think it's expanding anymore I think the universe is rebounding and shrinking at this point but that's another story)
Star light can be explained many other ways as well by the universe's expansion and the fact the speed of light isn't a guarantee and there's some reason to believe it's actually slowed down over time. In other words God probably had star light go super fast at first in order that Adam and Eve could see it from the beginning.
Replies: >>6480 >>6501
[Hide] (156.4KB, 500x500)
Here's another good one.
Furthermore, we are talking about the creation of the entire universe. I'm going to assume we're past naturalism. If we therefore believe there is a God that created the universe why do we limit him, why do we find it hard to believe that he would create the universe with star light already reaching us. It's hard to imagine the Earth was submerged with water, but it was. Hard to imagine the parting of the red sea, It might be hard to imagine what it would be like to see Jesus come back to life. At what point do you decide certain things to believe and disbeleive about supernatural processes?

Now you say, when God created the Heaven and the Earth what if that doesn't mean the entire universe, maybe the Heaven just means our galaxy or something or the universe was made and then billions of years later he fully formed the Earth in 6 days? Sure, why not, any which way you can get to your idea that the universe is ancient sure.

But the main most important point I think, is organic evolution, There are many many reasons to believe organic life hasn't been on this Earth for billions of years. Evolution is a joke, specifically Atheist evolution. How many times can we say it, a series of random genetic mutations is not going to turn little rat like animals into bats. That just isn't going to happen, and that's just one example. Random genetic mutations simply aren't going to cause the kind of evolution Atheists want. And they just ignore that fact. It's actually insane when you really think about how impossible the idea is for accidents to make up every kind of organic life we see. I've already posted links going into detail about this.
The idea that God used evolution to create life is at least possible. But we don't have any evidence that that's true. Quite the opposite. Evolution I'd say is dead in the water.
If Christians want to believe God for some reason took millions of years to do things and then 6 days for bringing life to Earth, you might be able to get away with that. But the Bible is very much against evolution, it just doesn't fit. And since it doesn't fit I'd say there's no reason to believe the universe is ancient anyways That's the reason Atheists are desperate to stretch timelines, they really need lots of time for evolution to happen, even though again, literally mathematically impossible and zero evidence for it, lots of evidence against it.
Replies: >>6482 >>6501
Although if you do want to have a gap theory perspective: that the first line in genesis is separate from "the first day" which is perfectly possible, the problem you have is stars were created in the 4th day. There's some ways you can explain that away but that's your main problem. "Maybe he just allowed the stars to be seen at that time."
You can believe God created the Universe and the formless Earth and then while he was busy elsewhere in the universe he came by and finished up the Earth in 6 days. You can technically believe that, the star line in the fourth day is your biggest issue. And ultimately reading the text, is that really what it's imply? Is it really?
The Bible is always proven true, all the historical events and locations have essentially been proven, we'll have Noah's Ark dug up next year. I'd say the pre-flood world has been proven. They used to laugh at the Bible for mentioning Canaanites, no longer do they laugh. The creation is all that's left to "prove". You really think the Bible is going to fail on this one last thing? I don't think so.

And so, yes, we have to explain away star light. Radiometric dating isn't a good method of dating, dating newly formed rocks gives you millions of years so of course dating old rocks can give you hundreds of millions but that's all in the links.
Creationist have very few things to explain away, it is in fact Atheist mythology which needs to explain away many many things which prove an old Earth and especially old life such as the magnetic field, faint young sun paradox, blah blah. In the links, I'm not going through them
I'm never talking about this stupid topic again, I'll whip every last person in the synagogue. Nothing can tempt me to make one more single remark about this so called "debate". pbpbpbpbpbp
Replies: >>6483 >>6501
And the flood itself has been proven of course, but I mean OBVIOUSLY. Oh every civilization on Earth was right about something what a surprise. Of course secular scientist refer to it as well I forget the technical name but they see it as "a series of flooding events" oooh, amazing, ok, anything to avoid the truth. The Bible is the truth.
Replies: >>6501
Heh, with all due respect, that's a whole lot of words brother to get to your basic point.
>The Bible is the truth.
You certainly won't hear anything different from me.

OTOH, making the claim that the Bible unequivocally states the entire universe is just 6'000 years is not only flat wrong, it also risks Biblical inerrancy.

The book of nature is as completely trustworthy and reliable as the book of scripture is Anon. God authored both. Science =/= Nature, just as Theology =/= God. Man's attempts at understanding are necessarily limited simply by dint of the fact we are constrained to the spacetime dimensions of our universe. Gödel's incompleteness theorems, et al.

But there are many thing we can make very strong assertions about, and one of those is the long history of the universe and the earth. They are both billions of years old. There was animal death before the Fall. There are literally thousands of metrics into these truths, and they have been known and extremely well-tested for centuries (some even for millennia).

Nature is in fact a reliable witness to the handiwork of God, just as the Psalms and many other scriptures state. Your salvation is 'not' dependent on clinging to this false dichotomy of Young Earth Creationism Anon. Just let it go would be my strong advice to you as a fellow Christian.

Replies: >>6504
I would actually say evolution is against one of the most important aspects of the Bible that death came from Adam's sin and Jesus corrected this and all sin. Like I said. There's more evidence to support a young Earth than an old one and that is what the Bible implies. We don't have the genealogy of Jesus for no reason. This is the truth and I've given you links to look at.

> Your salvation is not dependent on clinging to this false dichotomy of Young Earth Creationism Anon. Just let it go would be my strong advice to you as a fellow Christian.
Though I will warn you that God said he made the Earth in 6 days in the ten commandments, Jesus said from the beginning he made them male and female not an amoeba. Calling Jesus and God liars is dangerous.

I can tell you're somewhat upset, but as I said everyone is drilled into believing evolution. I've given you some creationist to look at. Evolution has no randomly generated legs to stand on. You talk about risking Bible inerrancy. Yet you go on to say animals death was before the fall. The sad thing is, you literally don't know why you believe this. You believe because you've been told to believe it. I'm being serious not mean. You are wrong about this, I'm not 99% sure I'm 100% sure. This is not something you should be so odd and passive aggressive about. Look at the real science being done. 

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Romans 5:12
Replies: >>6505
I'm just going to reply to myself because I'm impatient.

"But that doesn't say animal death directly nooooo animal death was going on for millions of years and then something something monkey men then Adam."

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Romans 5:14

I'd really like to know the way we're "Suppose" to interoperate Genesis. I mean clearly you're smart and should know. No Atheist is going to take you seriously. The Bible says the Earth came first, then plants then the sun, then animals. That happened over millions of years, in that order? You're gonna be laughed at by both Christians and Atheists.
If you want to throw out Genesis as purely fictional and poetic go ahead. Just say that. But I implore you to ask Jesus. Ask him if people had always known the truth of creation from the Bible, or if it was discovered by anti-god people in the 1800's. People openly trying to destroy Genesis. I can tell you've already made up your mind and despite not having any reason to believe what you believe you've assumed that there must be reasons because that's what you learned in the school system that also teaches gender doesn't exist. 

Everyone believes evolution at first, stop wasting time on stupid image boards and look at the stuff I've provided or don't but I have zero interest in going in circles with you saying "actually you're wrong." Okay yeah great.
Replies: >>6518
AND ANOTHER THING don't come near me or I'm whipping you. I don't want to hear it, I don't want to know your whack origin story for the Earth. I don't even think you know what you think.
>Well God formed like the universe over billions of years but like for him it's a short time anyways and then like he made the Earth and planted a single cell organism which somehow survived and grew into a horseshoe crab and Adam is like a methaphor for like humanity, man, deep man *puffs weed*. Millions of years ago Dinosaurs ROAMED the Earth! Just like my picture book says.
Ok well the thing is, that's not the Bible. None of it comes close to the Bible. And how strange that all of a sudden we need a fairy tail in the Bible. Why do we randomly need a fairy tail in the Bible, tell me when does the fairy tail end exactly? What verse in Genesis goes from being a fairy tail to reality?
>Oh you uneducated simpleton of no DEGREE, you simply don't understand how ancient people thought *scoffs* the garden of Eden is a metaphor and stuff like you don't even know how these ancient people wrote you surely are of little brain pish posh *scoffs* *scoffS*
I'm getting my whipping arm ready. If I have to hear another Christian tell me about his comic book origin story for the Earth that has nothing to do with the Bible It's going down. We know from all forms of science and observation that the Bible is true and even Christians don't want to accept that.
>Nooooo it can't be true, It's can't be NOOOOOO!! That's impossible! Madness! Madness! WAAAAAAAH!

You understand something I'm not having it anymore, enough of your nonsense. I don't care if you believe the Earth is older than it is, I really don't. I don't care if you ignore facts and evidence and observation. I do care that you peddle your sick nonsense as the truth of the Bible ooooh you've figured it all out have you?
>Oh little peons, charmed I'm sure, you must understand filthy persons I know the truth of Genesis, it's all quite rudimentary really if you're one of culture mmmyes, you simply aren't reading it correctly you see darlings, rather.
All of this has nothing to do with the Bible. Lie to yourself all you want but what this is about is trying to squeeze things you want into the Bible. "Well we have new information now we must conform darling." What information? So far I've brought up more reasons to doubt young Earth than anybody in this thread because old Earth creationist literally don't even know why they believe an old Earth, you have to tell them what they believe and why. They've never been challenged and don't expect to be they expect to sit on their soap box and speak down to the little peoples.
Replies: >>6519
[Hide] (1.2MB, 5184x3456)
I'm also perfectly find with Atheists in their universities believing they came from monkies breeding, yep. I am perfectly fine to say that Atheists sitting in their university chairs came from monkies breeding, no argument from me. But what I am saying there's no evidence. Now I have given links to look at, if you want to respond to usual statements go ahead.
>Well just because we don't have evidence for evolution in the fossils doesn't mean it didn't happen, and like soft tissue can survive for 110 million years now because clearly it can we can't be wrong about our assumed dates why would you think that and clearly the carbon dating of these doesn't work because... it's millions of years! Observation must be dismissed to save my current world view.
You can find arguments for literally every possible thing in existence. You want to argue about the magnetic field decay or hellium, Earth's rotation, the Moon moving further away, whatever. Every side has an excuse for every possible thing, weak excuses often.
But again I don't care if Christians want to wrongly assume the universe is BILLIONS of years old, wow, that's dumb but it doesn't effect much of anything other than being dumb. Evolution on the other hand is more than wrong it's evil and destroying children's faith in the Bible. It doesn't matter if you try to cram it into Christianity, people are being tricked by evolution it's the king with no clothes.
Either Genesis is wrong, the creation account is randomly fictional or it's true. The idea you can somehow interoperate it to mean billions of years of time is ridiculous. So say it's all just a creation myth from the Jews if you want. You really think Moses or the Jews or whoever you want to think wrote Genesis was thinking about evolution and billions of years? And where exactly does this human lineage go back to? What is the real history if not Genesis, well you have to come up with a lot of theories.
>It's like Jesus, he told stories to explain things and the creation account is a story so we would understand things and stuff
You can believe that. But only that. Don't bother trying to cram comic book origin stories into Genesis because it's not there. The animals from the beginning bring forth after their kind. There's lots of very specific details in early Genesis including lists and lists of early genealogies. Some rabbis just had fun inventing names? Or they're actual historical records recorded at the time by the people involved. I ask again when does reality start for Genesis? I'd say at the first word. God is not one of confusion, you don't need to be some modern high on his pride scholar to "understand the truth of Genesis oooh!" Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. (1 Corinthians 3:18). Genesis is very very grounded in this person lived this long and did this and begot so and so. And those ages match perfectly well with the pre-flood verses post flood world, there's many reasons people lived long periods of time before the flood and all of a sudden started to lose that ability after the flood. There's more info in the links I think people have explained all these things quite well.

Never you talk to me or my son again. How do I come to this dumb dumb board and always spend my time talking about some dumb thing. I have too much time finding excuses to argue with myself, which is technically what I'm doing I don't even remember what if anything I was responding to outside my own posts where I invent an opponent to sit down and belittle.🤍
For your Atheist friends: https://vimeo.com/661000964
>there has never been any evidence of speciation 
Yes there has. What are you talking about? Did you even do the smallest amount of research before typing out this mental diarrhea?

>In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species. 

That's just one example found with a cursory internet search. Why are you like this? Why do you feel the need to lie in order to prop up your deluded worldview?
This thread is one of the most startling examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect I've ever seen. The very first post contains OUTRIGHT LIES, something a Christian is never supposed to do. But there are no Christians here, only christcucks. 

The main force driving normal people away from religion is the type of nonsense here in this thread. Until people like you learn the humility to remain quiet about things you don't understand, the average person will continue to be irreligious, because even normies can detect your ignorance and plain stupidity. Absolutely disgusting. Shame on all of you. 

The only way to reconcile science with a literal interpretation of Genesis is the Omphalos Hypothesis. However, even in Origen's time, many theologians considered Genesis to be allegorical, so I recommend you join the millions of Christians who realize that evolution is part of God's plan and fully compatible with Christianity. Or, you can keep spewing sinful lies and pretending there's more evidence for a young earth than for an old earth. Again, I can't stress enough how rife this approach is with the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Well I didn't lie, but I can't speak for anyone else.
Said the man who doesn't explain why they are lies.
>The only way to reconcile science with a literal interpretation of Genesis is the Omphalos Hypothesis.
Ehh, not really. Even the modern brainwashed couch-weight can do it friend. Simply use the so-called Scientific Method. The first thing to do is 'establish the initial conditions'.

Scripture plainly states the Holy Spirit was hovering directly over the face of dark waters. To wit: He was right above the surface of an ocean world, under clouds so thick that they were completely opaque to the Sun's (and star's) light.
This isn't some Star Trek episode where the historical account is being told from Earth orbit. 

Once you get the initial conditions in your mind correctly then the entire things becomes completely clear, and in perfect accord with the scientific evidence.
Replies: >>7071
>oy vey please don't preach God's word as it was written!
Replies: >>7071
[Hide] (351.8KB, 598x472)
Replies: >>7072
absolute retard. kill yourself.

i have no idea what this nonsense about hovering over dark waters is about, but that's not important. i can only believe things that are proven. i understand religion as art, allegory, parables that speak of something without saying it. i think most christians have no idea what their own religion is really about, like most of the idiots in this thread
being obstinate in the face of reason is not a good thing
Replies: >>7073
[Hide] (52.1KB, 1079x580)
Just memes, my brother in Christ. Don't take them too seriously.
I recommend keeping an open mind in the subject. I used to balk at 6-day literalism myself but after a few years I can appreciate where they're coming from.
Replies: >>9493
I thought I posted these here but I didn't. IF you think Earth is a testimony to truth the other planets do an even better job at proving themselves.
Christianity is thriving in east Asia I think because Christianity thrives where it is oppressed. And I think that's why they're much more open to reality in China. People in China and Taiwan are simply carbon dating dinosaurs.
"Radiometric dating is perfect the decay rate is perfect there are no flaws you are dumb if you don't accept our dating of rocks." And then these people go on to squirm when it comes to carbon dating dinosaurs, mummified dinosaurs and at this point there's an endless slew of organic material being found now that people are actually looking at the fossils for it.
So what's the problem with carbon-14 dating dinosaurs and going by those dates. Why specifically are dinosaurs not allowed to be carbon-14 dated. They're the one and only thing you're not allowed to accept the dates on because the dates are only 40,000 years and we live in a globalized world that wants to think it knows everything already.

The dinosaur tissue is really the saddest thing because here we have an amazing discover and people are bending backwards trying to explain a way to keep their ridiculous anti0science religion. I've seen every attempt to try and explain why dinosaur tissue specifically gets special status as "not real and I hate it and stop talking about it."
People need to give up on perception and accept new information. Darwin thought his theory would be proved over time. It wasn't, if anything it's been thoroughly disproved. What point is there to continue to believe Darwinism. People aren't aware how much of nothing these ideas they're told to believe are based on.

 But my point I wanted to make was east Asia is at least following observation and the scientific method in greater numbers, people in the west not so much because we have a different culture going on that can't accept it, I think Asians are much more open to new discoveries and I wish I could see more about their fossil discoveries they don't always make it to the west all that they're doing over there. I love Chinese christians.
Replies: >>10062
[Hide] (261.7KB, 356x547)
Check out this book. It covers a lot of things like the fact that there is no such thing as 'neutral ground' in debate, and that people interpret evidence in line with the paradigm of their worldview. Ultimately it takes the presuppositional approach to battling atheism - atheism is an incoherent worldview, and atheists tacitly assume a theistic worldview to even debate, reason and have knowledge at all. Atheists can't provide epistemic justification and can't be said to have true knowledge.

Basically how Jay Dyer, Greg Bahsen and Cornelius Van Til argue.
Replies: >>8916
Christ believed in 6-day creation, Christ quoted God making man and woman from Genesis. The hebrew is in historical narrative and yom means 24-hour day. 

Why do people feel the need to appease and conform to the world with their beliefs about the Bible? Romans 12:2
Replies: >>9531
The level of ignorance Atheist need is shocking. Peter was so right to say they would be wilfully ignorant.
It's like resurrection arguments, Jesus being who he said he was is one if not the best most reliable facts in all ancient history.  I'd sooner believe the resurrection based on evidence than almost any other pre-photographic event. But people not only deny it but they are in extreme violent reaction to the fact someone has done a great thing for them and eternal life and all the rest of it. Does that seem just a little bit weird?

6,000 year old Earth, which, 6,000 years is a long long time, someone needs to inform evolutionist they have no idea how long 100,000 years is let alone 1 million let alone ONE HUNDRED MILLION, if you think organic life has been around on the Earth for even 100 million years you're insane. Come to western Canada and see how empty it is, 100 million years sure isn't a lot to show for it. And oddly just within 6,000 years or really 4,400 years (the flood) we get human civilisation and the oldest living organism.

I just don't know. It took me a few months after becoming a Christian. But right now somewhere you have an OnlyFans prostitute sitting and doing her sin and making others sin and they don't care if the evidence points to creation, they believe what they were taught in school and then they die. But like if there is a God I'll like totally go to Heaven and stuff!
I can't take it. As someone who is given the gift or curse of caring deeply I just can't understand why people won't believe the truth. They won't read the Gospel unless it's to be an "academic scholar oh yes let us give this old piece of literature a good intellectual read, mmmm yes rather." and they won't accept evidence so, I'm defeated. This is what God feels, the Bible says God desires everyone to repent and be saved so don't tell me this is about God's will is needed and he just chooses people at random, no. We have free will to come to him and it is his will to help that person.

The atheist win, they always win, they want to prove they have no salvation and they will, they are determined, their reverse-faith is one of the strongest forces in the universe you can try and try but it will crush you, they will go to Hell and they will kill you for trying to stop them, they would bite their own arms off if it proved to you they weren't saved.
Replies: >>9508
Just pray for them bro. They might get the grace of conversion. Werent many here former heavy sinners too who scoffed at the idea of having a religious life? I was. 

They are blind and cant see the obvious, need miracle healing. Which is why there are so many blind related miracles in the bible.
Dinosaurs and marine life are found together all the time, they pretend this is unique because it's the only place they want such finds for their theory. The smooth stone fragment is from the fountains of the deep, the mid-atlantic ridge bursting open, or you know just a rock. A meteorite is not going to cover the Earth in water and on top of that every single fossil layer show animals dying in "violent flash floods" but for the higher final layers it's magically caused by a great tsunami that covered the Earth and wiped out the dinosaurs and it was a meteorite oooh.

They say it's odd there's not a lot of dinosaur fossils from the actual "extinction event" the higher layers. That's because the flood waters buried them already. The higher layers are from the flood waters receding, very few animals were left by this point. That's the funny thing the fossil record does not support any kind of sudden disappearance. The flood waters also receded down hill meaning into the southern US for example.

I don't know, you dig a foot into the mud and find a preserved dinosaur with organic tissue and you refuse to date it because you know it won't give you millions of years, it's just embarrassing. With our dating methods when we date newly formed rocks from volcanoes we get dates of millions of years. They also do not get the dates they want from the Earth layers, it doesn't just get slowly older the further you go down, sometimes it does and that's because of course they are slightly older the further you go down.

And how does this soft tissue survive.
It just does don't question it and we're not allowed to date it. In East Asia they have enough respect for science they just carbon date the animals like any other animals. Just want to know the truth. Not looking to twist evidence into their presupposed theory.

I'm so tired of this topic though. >>6463
I unironically wish I could MAKE Myself believe the earth is flat..I would be so motivated to train ,workout,toil to be like a biblical warrior(samson, david, that one who beheaded a party of baal priests).
If we're in a ball floating in a string-based mass of galaxies ,I kinda lose all motivation to become an epic warrior. Who cares about doing thousands of reps in a place where billions of suns die each micro second?
Replies: >>9903
Take the geocentrism-pill at the very least.
Replies: >>9915
in a way, heliocentrism makes Joshua pretty awesome
>he literally stopped the entire universe from moving for a while
[Hide] (228.9KB, 1220x787)
This is a cross section of a grass cell under a microscope. Somewhat related to the Orchids video I linked >>8097
Circle Earth.
And yes indeed the moon landings were fake no one doubts that at this point, it's over. 
The thing is, what other lies are going on. I'm really sick of being in this world, I have zero interest. People frothing at the mouth because they might not be able to crush baby skulls in the womb anymore. I just don't know how anyone could be interested in humanity. It is so corrupt it is so gross and seeped with manipulation and lies. You got Bill Gates telling us about vaccines because if you have enough money your opinion automatically matters and you get to sit in a chair with other disgusting people in front of cameras and be the kings of the world of dust. People being ignorant at all cost towards the obvious sciences completely destroying evolution... Eh. I'm retiring from this world. It's all so so dumb this idea we have these smart experts telling us what for, dumb college kids and a system teaching us gender no longer is a thing or whatever.

With that said I do not actually believe the Earth is a circle even though I think the Bible makes more sense that way, Isaiah said it was a circle. And frankly we should go by Bible first and then see what nature and observation says. Video games and TV shows who cares, oh who cares about it who cares about God-haterd willingly going to Hell I am so tired.
And when Jesus tells me "Oh yeah the Earth actually was like a disc with a cavernous Hell underneath and stuff" phhh I won't even be surprised.
I wish Alex Jones would become a true Christian.
Replies: >>10068
[Hide] (291.8KB, 1149x813)
>And yes indeed the moon landings were fake no one doubts that at this point, it's over. 
The most humorous/bizarre part of this is that you're probably making this statement unironically.
Replies: >>10069
Well I know the argument now is "it's just the photos that are fake but they really went there."
Which is just desperate but I really don't care anymore people are ignorant and just believe what they're told before actually doing research.
[Hide] (807.2KB, 734x862)
And who are they simping for?
NASA admits they don't know how to get past the Van Allen radiation belt. Oh I thought you did that in the 60's with a tin can. They literally can't go to the moon today but yeah they went there in a bucket put together by literal duct tape... You see I just don't know. It's just one of those things "when it all comes out everyone will see." Well no. So finally Italians put together a three hour documentary proving 100% the moon landings were fake, no one can dispute it... but who cares. No one cares. Because it doesn't matter what the facts are. What matters is what am I told to believe to be considered smart or acceptable or whatever by whatever Atheist system. It's all just sad and pointless and the world is nothing but "servile hippopotamuses". It's worse than the dinosaur tissue... nobody cares. It's embarrassing to find out you believed a lie since you were young, whatever.

It has nothing to do with the Bible but, like the truth of the Bible people are going to be in Hell and saying, "Hmm, nope, still don't believe it." Well you know, it's what it is.
Replies: >>10073
And on the point of evolution, every Bible believing Christian says this, I experience this. You tell someone why evolution isn't true and they are offended and you say, Well why do you believe in evolution. And for the first time in their life they realise they have no idea and they usually don't even scramble to find out.
It's like this, I know why you believe in billion year old Earth and evolution, but you don't. The average person really doesn't. They think "oh isn't there like a monkey man skull thing and that proves it and stuff." And then you yourself have to give the evidence for their own side. WHAT KIND OF WORLD IS THAT? Here's the evidence for your side for the thing you believe.
It's just aaaaah. AAAAH I don't know anymore.

And sometimes you know people on a somewhat personal level and you tell them, I got saved and I saw the spirit of the Lord and it's all real I'm not lying to you. You need to come to Jesus because you're going to Hell.
"Well I believe you probably had this experience and saw this thing but you know, I like my drugs and porn and stuff."
Well it seems like a bit of a risk don't you think I mean doing what you do you're either getting eternal nothing or eternal Hell so...
"Yeah well I don't know you know I don't like thinking about it and stuff."
...Well, well, ok, right okay, well... uhh. I uhh, okay well. Huh.

It's so crazy, it's kind of insane. Totally unhinged, mental. Wild. "Weeeeellll people need to come to Jesus by the heart not the mind." Yeah but I don't really see that happening for 99% of people either. People just really don't want the truth that Jesus died and rose again for them. They really want their sins instead. DESPERATELY.
So, sad but you know, okay. You'll see eventually I guess, yeah, okay, good luck I guess. I respect your absolutely insane decision to be in the worst place for eternity because smoking was fun for a few decades.
Moon landings for me are a situation not unlike a certain incident involving wooden oven doors: even if it did happen, 'so what?' Our scientists discovered that the object of wonder and mystique put in the sky to light the night was just a lifeless hunk of rock in the void.  It's why I can render such a boondoggle what it deserves to be in writing alternate history stories and such.
Replies: >>10075
The evidence for God raising Jesus from the dead and all the Bible being true is so heavy but they don't want it. They'll believe every other historical event and document so long as it's not related to the Bible. Jesus raising from the dead is one of the most obvious events based on historical documents.
Exodus for example my goodness has everything been proven about it all the supernatural events everything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsn_HqSxkDg
The Bible proven physically as always. Right in your face.

"Well if Jesus performed miracles how come like the Pharisees didn't believe him, lots of people still hated him, why is that." Because it doesn't matter, an Atheist could see back in time into the miracles and still wouldn't believe. They'd hate him more, geuninly, THINK about that. What is that?
It's stupidness is what it is. Oh well. that's the angry angry rant about unsaved people. I just wish they'd at least take a moment just try and seek. It's like force feeding a baby their beans or whatever. I mean you have a long life can you at least read the Gospel I bought this Gospel for you. "Nah won't read it. I got things to do." ...right.
I'm not sure that you said any real words to me. But I'm sure I agree with "boondoggle" and you know cornpop was a bad dude, kids touching my hairy legs and all that.
>moloch can do magic
>therefore it's words are righteous
What the fuck is this logic?
The raising of lazarus has been an article of faith (i.e. taken as unproven) since antiquity anyway
Replies: >>10079
stop swearing.
Replies: >>10082
Replies: >>11632
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
Replies: >>11633
sick adhom dudderino, care to address the point?
Replies: >>11636
I was quoting scripture. Out of the abundance of your heart, you speak curse words. Your own conscience convicts you.
Replies: >>11637
>I was quoting scripture
Yes, I am aware. That neither changes my point nor means that anything you've said was an address thereto. Quoting scripture with no relevance to the topic at hand in no way contributes to the discussion, wheresofar as the participants do have access to that scripture in their own right.
>Out of the abundance of your heart, you speak curse words. Your own conscience convicts you.
No, that's your wilful interpretation
Replies: >>11640
[Hide] (47.4KB, 657x527)
This isn't a word
I was looking at dandelions and realised they are very complex. Shoot up a flower with yellow pedals that closes and somehow turns into seeds with white poofs that let the seeds fly huge distances. Imagine that evolving by random nonsense. Plant evolution is an even bigger joke than the rest. Have all the millions of years you want to turn primordial soup into a dandelion while also on the side evolving to everything else.

And yes millions, don't let evolutionist try to get away with "no no billions trillions!" According to them the Cambrian explosion (sudden flood burials) was 500 million years ago. Yikes.
I personally can't wait for in a few hundred thousand years who knows what humans will look like, I'm guessing maybe like those guys who created the clones in Star Wars.
Replies: >>11893
Even the secularist are upset. Though it's funny that even with things like this they don't get it.

"It was explained away by an insistence that the bones, due to their clearly modern characteristics, must have come from a recent burial and somehow or other found themselves among the Pliocene strata. If in doubt, simply explain it away with logical thinking, even if you ignore the facts within plain sight and filter out the parts which do not fit."
Replies: >>11897 >>13258
It’s all a big joke built on a foundation of lie after lie. Even at the most basic level of life there is amazing complexity. DNA is literally a coded language that determines everything about us, and gives instructions for the creation of proteins. How did a literal code develop out of random and purposeless chemical interactions? Each and every cell in our body is amazingly complex with interacting parts and subsystems, some of which can read the mRNA code and do protein synthesis. It’s amazing, yet we are told that this is just random and a product of chance. We are also told to believe that multicellular complex forms of life somehow come from unicellular ancestors who just amalgamated together, lost all sense of individuality and became a single organism. I call bullshit. Honestly, evolution is one of those things that once you realize it’s a lie, you can never go back to believing in it. Even at the smallest microscopic levels you can see the hand of God there. Don’t even get me started on the lack of transitional forms between the major phyla, or the handwaving to get around the lack of forms even more closely related organisms. 

Replies: >>11892
>Honestly, evolution is one of those things that once you realize it’s a lie, you can never go back to believing in it.
This. I began to suspect it was all a pack of lies at age 11yo, well before I was saved (16yo). Now that I'm a grown man and able to think much more critically than I could manage at 10yo-11yo I consider that the upper echelons of the biological sciences in particular are in many cases outright, knowing liars.

There are many, many things we can effectively prove in the sciences (13Gya hot creation event AKA 'Big Bang', all the classical mechanics, quantum mechanical nature of atomic & subatomic force interactions, etc., etc.), but so-called Neo-Darwinism is not only not in this general category of the sciences...it's provably wrong.

But these rascals don't care much about the truth AFAICT--even when it directly impacts their own research--but rather are far, far more concerned with the approval of their peers and the continued-funding that that implies.

And actually, there's a far more fundamental issue at hand than the example ones you mentioned Anon. To wit; 'There is no mechanism for Abiogenesis'.

Natural selection is provably-real, and therefore so is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution? Not a chance.

But the much more fundamental issue of the appearance of so-called LUCA is absolutely #rekt-ing their entire world view. Again, at the highest echelons this inescapable fact is well-understood now.

Yet they persist in pressing on--now making appeals to the Multiverse or other 'Gambler's Fallacy' -type misconstructions. Basically they don't want to face the metaphysical realities that are readily apparent in their own results.

Sin is like that tbh, it makes us delusional in the end if we don't confront it and turn it over to Jesus Christ for cleansing & healing. I pray that those who try to force-fit the observable universe into their own little 'god-box' --including the Christians doing it--will be freed from that during this life.

Truth is far, far more strange (and amazing!) than fiction. Read a book, *****. :^)
[Hide] (312.5KB, 1500x1935)
>I was looking at dandelions and realised they are very complex. Shoot up a flower with yellow pedals that closes and somehow turns into seeds with white poofs that let the seeds fly huge distances.
You might enjoy this short documentary.


Pic related.
>It wasn’t until Neanderthals became accepted as the Pleistocene ancestors of modern humans that French anthropologists were forced to drop the Clichy skeleton from the human evolutionary line
I thought the current idea was that neanderthals were cousins not ancestors
>I thought the current idea was that neanderthals were cousins not ancestors

pretty much, its believed that they were the retarded version of current humans.
Replies: >>11945
[Hide] (1.5MB, 1200x840)
Neanderthals are simply humans. We were capable of interbreeding with them, so they are the same created kind as we are today. They were probably among those were wiped out in the Flood.
What if they were the line of Cain
Replies: >>11901
theyre probably just fake, wouldnt be the first time scientists faked something like that.

but they could be Nephilim idk.
>They were probably among those were wiped out in the Flood.

I think I read that cro-magnum species just violently killed and raped them out of existence.  Need to confirm that, but that's what happened to them
Replies: >>11924
> I think I read that cro-magnum species just violently killed and raped them out of existence.  
This is your brain on the religion of death, Darwinism
Replies: >>11926
[Hide] (81KB, 609x750)
Death will win.
Replies: >>11930
Christ already destroyed death
[Hide] (19.3MB, 1280x720, 01:48)
If you have a witness task you know how much damage evolution has done to people.
"Our monkey brain makes us think that."
"Well the lizard part of your brain."
"Evolutionarily speaking..."
"We're just monkies."
"You're a monkey! You're a monkey! You're a monkey!"
It's all so unbelievably ironic, professing to be wise they became monkies. They will use it to justify all their sins pretty much all the time when cornered.
And it's very annoying because you know these people, not only do they know nothing about evolution but it's pointless to try and tell them it's wrong it gets nowhere but it's basically their infallible Bible they rest on without ever reading it in the first place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCHTja9wolQ

Evolution is so so so terrible. It is THE cult.
Replies: >>11944 >>12015
Darwinism is not founded on science, it is 'occult' - necessary reading for all Christians ITT:
Replies: >>12015
it basically is a religion at this point.
They have their own religious books, their own religious figures, and the beliefs that stem from their "religion" heavily influence their daily lives and values.
Replies: >>12015
Not only are homo neanderthalensis not in the supposed-linage of homo sapiens sapiens, we now know they 'are not in the lineage of any other hominid species at all'.

Like several of the hominid species, neanderthals are a completely-distinct lineage. God created them as completely separate (Hebraic) Min.
t. nigger
Replies: >>12015
They can interbreed with humans, they are the same min. If Chihuahuas and Great Danes are the same created kind, so are Neanderthals and modern humans
Replies: >>11951 >>12015
There are many different types of tumbleweeds. But they will never evolve into anything but tumbleweeds nor did they evolve from… whatever. Whatever imaginary thing.
Many different types of frogs. Always frogs though.
When you see a four leaf clover once in your life. That's a genetic mutation, an accident, that's evolution. But you know that will never help it evolve into a sunflower.
Nor will any slime in the ocean evolve into every millions of millions of different species on Earth even if you had your 500 million years.
You hear that atheists passing by. You're being punked. Lied to. Laughed at by the devil. Stop it.
Replies: >>12015
No not really, to both counts. Donkeys and horses are not the same min, and we are expressly commanded not to breed them together. As to your first (highly dubious) claim, the evidence is that homo neanderthalensis went extinct well before homo sapiens sapiens ever showed up on the scene in Europe. So no.
Replies: >>12009 >>12015
>the evidence is that homo neanderthalensis went extinct well before homo sapiens sapiens ever showed up on the scene in Europe. So no.
Ah, so you're saying that you don't believe in the Bible. Gotcha
Replies: >>12011 >>12015
Heh, can't really tell if you mean that to be a strawman, or just a simple ad hominem. :^)

Ofc I believe the Bible. I wouldn't be here if I didn't tbh. I believe I already know what you're going to say ahead of time, but I'll bite. But go ahead and give it a shot anyway Anon.
How is a species going extinct somehow not a Biblically-sound claim?
Replies: >>12015 >>12016
[Hide] (37.5KB, 750x1000)
You're all a bunch of stupid, pathetic apes with overactive imaginations. You're nothing better than animals and you show it by spitting on the face of your fake god each and every single day excusing yourself by saying he'll "forgive you" while hypocritically harassing those that don't care for your mental delusions. You can't face the reality that there really is no reason for you to exist, you could die tomorrow and the universe wouldn't give a damn. There is no creator and nobody that cares about your pathetic lives out there. If you think that I deserve to go to hell for saying this, the joke is you're going to hell too. Every single human being is going to die and rot in the cold hard ground. Accept it and move on with your lives.
Replies: >>12018 >>12692
It seemed to me if you were affirming the time-scale and history of the past as pushed by evolutionist paleontologists (old earth, etc). If you were not doing that, forgive me, anon.
Replies: >>12040
I'm perfectly fine with you believing you're the result of monkies breeding. No arguments from me, in fact reading your post I find it hard to believe that that's not true. So thank you for believing that and continue to do so.

Now who witnessed to you recently and how did they hurt you? Did a JW give you a pamphlet saying you're headed to Hell and coming and posting this is your "revenge!".

Why don't you believe Jesus raised from the dead as his disciples said?
Replies: >>12049
There's nothing to forgive there, I understand your theological viewpoint fairly well anon, you're weren't slighting me as a fellow Brother in Christ. However--and I almost hate to break this to you, due to your courteous response to my impertinent one :^)--I am affirming the long-creation days that you dislike.

Please don't misunderstand me Anon. I certainly am no 'evolutionist' by any stripe that term is commonly-used today (inside or outside the Church). I am a "Day-Age Creationist". There are plainly many corollaries between actual, truthful science investigation and actual, truthful theological investigation. The sequencing of the species across the ~550 Mya-today 'train' of higher lifeforms across on-and-off the 'stage' of the Earth is clearly validated in 1'001 different ways, Biblically and naturally.

God wrote two different books for us to all study: the book of Scripture, and the 'book' of nature.
 >Did a JW give you a pamphlet saying you're headed to Hell 
JW confirmed for posting on this board.
I see what you did there ;-)

The death of junk DNA not so long ago was really swept under the rug as with anything that destroys new-age pagan mythology. This should have been the end of evolution. All DNA is useful.
>All that anger
[Hide] (12.7MB, 1280x720, 01:07)
The next time someone brings up monkies are genetically similar to humans. Means nothing. It's strange that they aren't actually more the same genetic makeup.


Atheists floundering
Watching these you realise why God doesn't entertain the academically wise and uses the foolish things to confound them. I don't want to say they're proudful in their high IQs but it's something like that. God doesn't need that.
Replies: >>12788 >>13009
i heard somewhere that humans are more closely related to grasshoppers than apes?
Replies: >>12789
[Hide] (198.5KB, 1920x1280)
Eventually I will stop having things to post in this thread, eventually. Gosh Bible.ca I was looking at their creationism section they have a whole thing and it really never ends.

I heard somewhere you need a spanking.

grasshopers are bugs and therefore icky and gross and I will not look at them. The locus swarm!

I feel like getting a pet hamster or mouse or something. I used to have a pet rat. I want to give him a little pope hat. I heard Francis was thinking of retiring so, who knows.
Replies: >>12793
get a shrew theyre cute especially the pigmy ones. Then you give him little locks of hair and a funny hat and call him Shrewish
nice sage newfag
Heey I was talking about Dandelions earlier, Kent is watching. His cow analogy is actually good. You can only train a cow to jump so high, there is a limit, end of story. There is a limit to how much a species can change. Look at how many variates of Sharks there are and actually I was wondering if the Megladon is just a pre-flood Great White, people always depict it as just a large Great White.

It's so sad that you have people who will look at some article "Megladons lived from 50 BYA to blah blah blah millions of years ago because it was in the dirt." And people just take that and believe it. Trusting in man, never, not once. And then they're say "Why Megladons went extinct!" OH I can't wait to hear about that, what theory did you come up with from the tooth fragments you have that you claim are separated by millions of years. That's always the best the "Why this animal went extinct." It's always hilarious because it's just another major obvious flaw with their world view.
Replies: >>12984
always read between the lines, especially nowadays.
St. John of Damascus on dragons:
If bananas have 60% of the genes that humans do, and bonobos 98.7% it really makes me think that genes really aren't all they are cut out to be. Even the tiniest quantitative difference seems to result in massive and unfathomable qualitative differences in species. A bonobo is smart, but it is retarded compared to the most intelligent man, let alone an average man. Less than 2% quantitative difference is meaningless
I've watched this whole video series he has made. It's very good. Aside from evolution he also gets into a topic which I am not going to spoil but if you watch the whole thing I think without a doubt it's proven.
Replies: >>13231
[Hide] (14MB, 474x360, 03:16)
[Hide] (3.6MB, 1280x720, 00:19)
[Hide] (12.7MB, 1280x720, 01:36)
[Hide] (11MB, 1280x720, 00:58)
[Hide] (9.7MB, 1280x720, 00:51)
No one has ever dropped a "go look it up!" better than Trey.

I haven't been feeling so well being surrounded by non-christians. Maybe I'm not worthy enough to be around disciple yet or God is doing something but I just hope it changes soon. I can't believe people make friends at church, well I guess I can believe that because people make friends everywhere, apparently.
This world blows! I just want to live in a church with christians. Things are very painful and ungodly everywhere, I'm surrounded.
Replies: >>13204 >>13209
great videos
Replies: >>13231
[Hide] (18.7KB, 297x352)
>tfw im the only real christian in the whole universe
Replies: >>13211 >>13215
I think there's about 3 or 4 real Christians. and then 1 billion fake ones and 7 billion atheists it's actually a tragic world we live in.

I was going to make a post about my parents, I finally opened up to them about Jesus and they went on about "many paths to God" and used terms like "my truth " and a bunch of other things you always hear and it's just too much. What's going to happen to all these people I don't know. Even if they don't admit it, they don't really believe Jesus is who he is. And most of them do just admit they don't believe he is the Son of God. This is all I ever see.
Of course I go to church and there's a bunch of old people there who sure are fine but in my own life I don't think I've met another disciple of Jesus. I don't know if I have, ever. outside of church gatherings, I don't think I've ever caught a wild Christian in my pokeball or looked them up on the pokedex. And I can't make friends at church, the only people who can do that are people who make friends at work and other places, people who make friends. So I feel very not well in this world. In my previous Church community there was a guy, very sociable he mentioned he only really knew Christians at church. He worked as a teacher and Jesus just never comes up Christianity is just a joke to the world. He's so sociable and he said he feels alone and doesn't know anyone who knows anything about Jesus, but he has a wife and kids.

But then apparently people have these great Christian Baptist God-fearing Bible believing families and the wife wears a blue sundress and the kids all stand in order of height for their meals, apparently these things exists and they go to the church and everyone is so happy and great, O WHAT FELLOWSHIP O WHAT JOY DIVINE, apparently such things exist. Many are in a world of hurt, physical sometimes in certain countries but otherwise just suffering a much slower death as the world crushes and crushes you and hisses at you.

I try not to complain because Jesus should be more than enough for anybody anyways. Many Christians are having to learn a hard lesson, the lesson of John the Apostle. Jesus tells John that he wants him to do nothing. Jesus sometimes wants you to do nothing and that is actually difficult to just exist and be alone and sit there. For some anyways, many have accomplished this but I feel anxious and I want to do stuff I want to be with Christians I want to be doing stuff, well, it's not always meant to be.
Replies: >>13215
please teach me how to be a real christian im feeling completely lost
Replies: >>13225 >>13228
Ask Jesus and study his life.
[Hide] (15.4KB, 735x408)
Well just don't be a fake Christian and presumably you'd be a real one. Luke writes that the Disciples were called Christians. So it's another word for a Disciple of Jesus in a way but I think it also encompasses the broader whole meaning of everything. You can be a Disciple of Jesus and be ignorant of many Christian things. Some would say a real Christian is a born again Christian, a saved Christian. But certainly you can be a Disciple of Jesus and not go to Heaven, obviously as we know. A real Christian I would say is not someone who would has certain boxes marked but someone who doesn't have certain boxes marked. You can call yourself a Christian so long as you don't believe certain things. Things which are plainly against God and the truth. Not matters of doctrine but matters of a hard heart. These things can be determined almost always clearly by the canon writings. A Christian is sort of an umbrella term for someone pursing the things of Christendom. How to be a Disciple of Jesus, history, salvation, whatever. If someone was lost about everything they of course should read the New Testament to start. Although sometimes that won't do anything if they're going into it with preconceived wrong ideas. Sometimes someone needs to explain clearly things.

) Jesus is just a good human teacher.

2) I go to Heaven or Hell because I was a good or bad person.
This is also wrong. When the angel asks what qualifies you to go to Heaven, don't try listing your good deeds.

That's really the two problems I find. Fundamental. I see it all the time, of course I believed both these incorrect things myself before. 
If you avoid these then you're doing pretty well in understanding. But even though these are basics the fact is the majority of the world doesn't agree with these two fundamentals. Why? Because God in human form is not just strange to the Jews. To the ordinary man it is strange and seems crazy, God being an ordinary man is not something you find anywhere, we might think pagan religions had something like this going on, no. They may have had Gods looking like humans and these sorts of things, but God just as a ordinary man walking around. It's crazy, then and now. So it will always be hard to accept that Jesus was the Son of God, THE God as in creator of the universe, as Richard Dawkins-types always point out, "The creator of the universe came down as a Jewish man and died 2,000 years ago that's foolishness." And that's why Paul says the cross is foolishness to the world.
And the idea that you can be forgiven of all sins and changed and let into Heaven not because of works but because of faith is again an insane idea. Heaven or Hell is one of the most common knoweldges of man across time and cultures we see from all over the world judgement after death. We see reincarnation based off what you did. Of course what you do in life is important, but faith in Christ for your righteousness, now that is not your average idea to just accept. So these two things are crazy, too good to be true. Though both of these truths make complete and sound sense when you actually seek to understand.

Now if someone is already passed the understanding part "yeah I know all this already! I believe!" But maybe they don't feel like they're a GOOD REAL Christian. Well personally I don't think that's what qualifies to be a real Christian. Real Christians may not be the best Disciples but what's important for definition is what they believe. Being a good or bad Christian is a separate issue. Once someone has accepted the truth of Jesus and is repenting of their life but needs help well I think that really depends on what we need help with. Obviously most if not all actual help comes from God. Fighting sin or whatever it is. Finding good sermons and reading the Bible and praying and all that is obviously very good. Repenting and confessing your sins right away to God is good. But most of all look toward Jesus and keep him in mind Jesus should take up more of your thought space than the guilt you feel from sins. Always pray for God to fill you with the Holy Spirit and that it may grow more dominate in you, because that is something you cannot do. You cannot fill yourself with it, only God can and so it's sensible to pray Lord please fill me with the Spirit and cause me to walk in your ways I want to see my life change directions. This can be prayed always for all life whether the prayer was already answered or not we always need more of the Spirit controlling us partnering with us, the Bible describes people as being full of him, like a Spirit meter or it just means you are fully sort of showing the Spirit in you it's fully manifest.
Replies: >>13232 >>13252
[Hide] (10.6MB, 640x360, 02:27)
Yeaaah I would say every single thing Trey says is the best thing ever. Top ten Christians of the 21st century by WatchMojo.

Earlier I told you all to watch this series: >>13076
Now I hope you've all finished your assignment because we're going to have an exam about what stars really are. I'll tell you honestly, stars are balls of lightning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning
And I'll tell you honestly a star led the Magi and a star was above the house when Jesus was born, it came down and was above the house. And I'll tell you, truly honestly really truly honestly, well actually that's it. I think so. We actually have no infromation about space. It's just another thing like Evolution. "Oh we know about space, everyone says stars are just other suns and they're super far away and galaxies are travelling away faster than the speed of light an blah blah blah I saw pictures and stuff." It's ll just junk. 99% of pictures from space and of space are just artist conceptions or real photos which have been altered totally. I don't know why, well maybe I do but really photos of space are not impressive and we really don't know anything.

The other thing interesting in the series was I didn't know how obvious the proof was that Earth is indeed at the centre of the universe. Actually there's some interesting space stuff I'm starting to see now.
Replies: >>13240
>The two powers
Good video brother, very interesting
Interesting webm, do you have the full video? 
thanks in advance.
Replies: >>13250
It's from one of these. He has two other genesis episodes but they're not as good. Then he still has a new episode which has been behind a paywall on his website for months. I wanna see it. Aside from Genesis he went through a phase of political videos for a while which I think he's done with now. What's funny is someone at my church—who doesn't believe in young Earth creationism stuff at all—showed me this guy because he thought he was crazy and funny.
thanks brother
i kinda went on an autistic rant here.
anyways, whether they genetically recreate our "ancestors" or not the law of conservation will forever be a thorn in their side since autistic ramblings aside its still not physically possible that a ape could turn into a human no matter how many billions of years you add to the timeline and even if you said that apes didnt turn into humans they just gradually took the shape of us it still wouldnt make any sense.

Even taking mutations into account (which are almost always net negatives) the only viable way for a mutation to become a dominant gene would be for two people with the exact same mutation to breed, otherwise it just decreases in prevalence with every generation.. The only possible way you could create an ape out of a human or vice versa is if you used modern science to genetically butcher the human (or ape) body into taking the form of the ape (or human) body and even then that would require careful and well thought out design and the likelihood of that happening in nature would be slim to non especially considering the vast nuanced differences between the two. And really aside from our mental capabilities humans are largely inferior to apes. Our arms are less versatile and less strong and are smaller in length, our teeth arent as sharp which makes eating foods like meat more of a challenge, our fingers arent as long which makes it harder for us to grab and hold onto things, etc etc etc. The only real "evolutionary" advantage humans would have gained over apes was our increased brain power which makes the likelihood of this evolution even less likely since the logic of evolution relies upon the idea of natural selection which implies that the traits chosen would all be positive. If that were the case then we would basically just be monkeys with smarter brains. In other words the only way for humans to exist is if the entire universe just conveniently managed to trip over itself and cause a huge clusterfuck multiple times over the course of a couple billion years which at that point sounds more like an excuse to just not believe in God than proof of evolution.

and thats without getting into the fact that if humans evolved from apes THEN WHY THE FUCK DO APES STILL EXIST?

tl;dr evolution is stupid and makes no sense.
Replies: >>13536 >>13537
[Hide] (621.8KB, 768x1024)
[Hide] (1.1MB, 1302x1600)
[Hide] (153.1KB, 474x618)
and just to put into perspective how radical of a change it would be to go from an ape to a human, 
heres a picture of a human and a chimpanzee
.this is supposedly cron-magnon an early human. Idk about you guys but it looks identical to modern humans to me.

Pretty much. They mixed  assaulted and raped with Neanderthals whom had raly pretty eyes and light face features and that's where modern humans come from
Replies: >>13539
or its just a human skull that scientists dug up/recreated and gave a funny name
[Hide] (14.1MB, 720x554)
[Hide] (10.4MB, 1280x720, 02:17)
He actually has a lot of interesting stuff to present. I know he doesn't have high production but quite a few things I hadn't seen before. I didn't know Dinosaur footprints and fossils are found right up on the top layer. The idea erosion somehow, so ridiculous.
Replies: >>14434
[Hide] (2.9MB, 01:35)
[Hide] (996.9KB, 01:03)
More trumpets!

Book of Moses: Exodus
"And it came to pass on the third day, as the morning drew nigh, there were voices and lightnings and a dark cloud on mount Sina: the voice of the trumpet sounded loud, and all the people in the camp trembled. And Moses led the people forth out of the camp to meet God, and they stood by under the mountain. The mount of Sina was altogether on a smoke, because God had descended upon it in fire; and the smoke went up as the smoke of a furnace, and the people were exceedingly amazed. And the sounds of the trumpet were waxing very much louder."

Book of Moses: Numbers
"And whenever ye shall gather the assembly, ye shall sound, but not an alarm. And the priests the sons of Aaron shall sound with the trumpets; and it shall be a perpetual ordinance for you throughout your generations. And if ye shall go forth to war in your land against your enemies that are opposed to you, then shall ye sound with the trumpets; and ye shall be had in remembrance before the Lord, and ye shall be saved from your enemies."

Prophecy of Joel
"Sound the trumpet in Sion, make a proclamation in my holy mountain, and let all the inhabitants of the land be confounded: for the day of the Lord is near"

Prophecy of Zephaniah
"For the great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and very speedy; the sound of the day of the Lord is made bitter and harsh. 15 A mighty day of wrath is that day, a day of affliction and distress, a day of desolation and destruction, a day of gloominess and darkness, a day of cloud and vapour, a day of the trumpet and cry against the strong cities, and against the high towers. And I will greatly afflict the men, and they shall walk as blind men, because they have sinned against the Lord"

The Good News according to Matthew
"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians
"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."

The Book of Revelation
"After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne."

The Book of Revelation
"And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets."
[Hide] (536.9KB, 1170x1642)
Evolution is paganism. Simply looking at the Hindu myth of the ten avatars of Vishnu—the Dashavatara—will prove this. First the god Vishnu was a fish, and then a turtle, and then a boar, and then a man-beast, and then a dwarf, and then a man (and thereafter the man becomes more ‘civilized’). Ancient Greek pagan philosophy also has elements of Darwinism. Empedocles, who believed in vegetarianism, reincarnation and a cyclical universe driven by two forces of ‘Love’ and ‘Strife’, also believed that at certain periods disembodied organs and parts were assembled through the influence of Love, creating different creatures, which were then selected among by natural selection. Similarly, Anaximander believed that man once came out ofbl fish-like beings. 

Abiogenesis is no different than the idea of Zeus throwing a lightning bolt at a rock and creating humans from it. Speaking of Zeus, UFOs and aliens as ‘highly-evolved’ extraterrestrials is simply a modern ‘scientific’ recasting of pagan pantheons of ‘gods’ who come down and abduct women, spread spiritual wisdom, and live in the clouds. The ancient pagan myths of evolution and aliens have been combined with old heresies, such as chiliasm, and one merely has to look at movies to see how the idea of the aliens coming and visiting earth is framed as a sort of Luciferian ‘second coming’ of the pagan deities to earth.
[Hide] (485.1KB, 1170x797)
[Hide] (531.6KB, 1170x765)
Ernst Haeckel shilled for sun-worship
[Hide] (58.5KB, 490x550)
[Hide] (3.2MB, 03:28)
My grandpa was a sea sponge and my distant relative is a carrot. Just straight Science™ facts.

Bats are actually amazing all 1,200 species. From giant flying foxes to tiny bumble bee bats. Only one species drinks blood. Different abilities and appearances. And you know where they all evolved from? Bats. Yeah. They've got bat code. They do not have turtleshell code or whale code. They are bats of the bat kind. The modern world has been able to record instances of rapid speciation but we don't see nonsense and junk. And bats of course there's a bit in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHRYnm_J4ts
Monkey skulls can easily be turned into whatever the viewer wants. Plenty of monkey skulls today look similar to humans in fact many monkies today look similar to humans in general especially in the face but they are nothing like man, it wasn't that long ago bits of a Rhesus Macaque skull was promoted as another 'missing link' and drawn as another sasquatch. Once you go past the monkey world the connection completely falls apart to wherever the sasquatch evolved from. Evolutionist tout evidence as much as can fit in about a pickup truck or a bathtub and that's assuming it's all not fraudulent which given the history they don't deserve that assumption. Of all the fossil record, evolutionist hold on to scraps which they impose their imagination on. There would have been many many species of every kind including the ape, the monkey a great animal man would have shared Paradise with.

Replies: >>15939
Ape skulls are actually very different from human skulls once you start measuring them. A chimps skull for example is set at a heavy angle from upper lip to forehead where as human skulls are all 90 degree with only minor exception
Replies: >>17318
[Hide] (5.6MB, 500x500, 00:29)
You know I can't leave you hanging if you keep bumping this my Lover. If you keep bumping I'm going to go bumper to bumper with you in our hearts. You know I can't leave the bumper hanging when Evolutionist are out there making fools of themselves.

Great new video compilation
New article

And no one has posted about the JWST's results probably the biggest blow to evolutionist in a long time.

I posted a comment here I think got shadow banned by youtube but in short: The JWST's main mission was to "see the origin of the universe" seriously that's what they constantly said because if the Big Bang and cosmic evolution was true they would have seen it. And what did they see instead? Nothing. They saw the same old thing, The same old galaxies. There is no Big Bang there is no "Cosmic evolution" and by the way to all your Christians who thought you were smart going along with the "7.8 billion years 11.7 billion years 18.5 billion years no 18.4 billion years." Turns out all those very precision scientific sounding dates where WRONG completely. No one even knows what they're going to do are they seriously going to add more billions of years and claim the Big Bang is still real despite STILL not having any evidence?
There's much more to say but that is the very short summary.
I really want a T-shirt that sounds "drought uncovers 113 million year old dinosaur footprints." Evolutionist have no idea what even 1 million years is.
It reminds me of this https://www.icr.org/article/paddlefish-american
"Threatened species? After 350 million years?"
"Living fossil!"

You really start to realise that videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiLllhFsQMg
I saw the thumbnail for this and it just hit me, these are no different than LOTR deep lore videos. And I don't mean to be mean but in a genuine way. But some people really like the idea of this kind of world like you have the really big dinosaur fans. Ignoring the fact all the modern animal insect fish families have been found in the same layers but they like this idea of a fantasy world not getting down into the science and facts. I understand why the Director of the Zoological Museum of France said evolution was a fairy tale for grown ups.

And it does though upset me, I don't care if Christians believe evolution or whatever. But it is my belief it has been the most harmful religion in the world in a very practical sense as well when you look at its document effects and history and its unashamed anti-God origins.
[Hide] (5.1MB, 05:32)
In the space of a month. Depression was thrown out the window and the Big Bang. For those that don't know the chemical imbalance serotonin theory is now considered wrong (something everyone on the "fringe" already knew) and it turns out there was never anything supporting the idea anyways. Great. And life moves on. One day everyone will be told there wasn't really a Jurassic Age and there was never any evidence to support the idea anyways it was invented by a anti-christian lawyer. And life will move on. We think we live in unique times.
I assert to you this Lovers, "academia" is man's knowledge. Never place your faith (that is your trust) in man's knowledge. Does dinosaur tissue officially throw evolution in the trash? Yes. Did the JWST just disprove the Big Bang? Yes. "No no no no we just need a bit more time we'll get the evidence next telescope." Imagine being able to look back and time and see if Jesus really rose from the dead. Well we just looked back in time and we did not see your Big Bang God. And I'm sure they will teach these unscientific unproven anti-biblical concepts until the end of time or 200 years. The general narrative is always wrong no matter where in history. The idea of expert classes makes everyone stupid. "I'm sure the clergy knows what they're talking about we don't need the Bible for the common man! I trust the experts." and everyone's favourite https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGDbpg1nG8Y
Don't trust college kids who have put themselves into debt to defend their religion.
So you can look back and laugh at people in the past. I assure you: People will one day look back and laugh at  you because you believed potatoes and sea horses had a common ancestor. And that as is said here all the oak trees in the world came from a dot of nothing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lhGtvAVpss

Praise God for the creation. All God's saints said: Amen.

"G-g-god would never forgive anyways!" uhhh yes he can. We don't earn the Holy Spirit. We don't justify ourselves. Our justification comes from the completed works of Jesus our righteousness based on what he did or didn't do.
'Galatians 2:16 says: yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.'
That chance to turn is always available right up until the last moment. When the thief on the cross turned to Jesus and said Lord remember me when you come into your Kingdom Jesus said to him verily I say to you tonight you will be with me in Paradise. He didn't have time to be baptised he didn't have time to do any good deeds he had time for one thing, faith in Christ.
All over the world from Jews to Japanese they performed sacrifices for sins. Man knows sins and the responsibility to the creator. Not silly made up idols like Zeus and whatever the Hindus talk about, they don't really believe in these things. Hindus in fact admit often they believe in one God. The Romans didn't really believe in their "gods". Even Paul says they knew God. Sacrifice is bloody and horrible, the bloody and horrible reality of sin, which was made complete for the horrible acts we do is forgiven in the final bloody horrible sacrifice of the final lamb of God. Trust and believe in Jesus.
Dude. Bro. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZRTX8iwHIQ
Genesis Apologetics is getting hip with the college kids now. They pulled two kids right out of Starbucks. l33t.
[Hide] (45.5KB, 480x360)
Drought reveals dinosaur footprints at surface level on Texas riverbed.
Replies: >>17450
[Hide] (18MB, 640x360, 04:14)
[Hide] (1.3MB, 640x360, 00:05)
It really is a drought uncovers kind of day. Charles Lyell's theory no matter what cannot be thrown out because it's the basis of modern religion. During the Scopes Monkey Trial evolutionist said the lowest layers are obviously the oldest. Well that was until they started finding that the geological column they invented as a timeline of the Earth doesn't exist. There's no Jurassic period you can see in the Earth. So they say, well sometimes layers can slide onto other layers. They date the layers by the fossils to fit with their deep lore of the Earth with all its crazy nonsensical time periods. And layers that for example that would seem impossibly too high which need to be older they will be glad to say yes the layers were built up for many millions of years but then at the right time it began to weather-away at the perfect time millions of years ago to be revealed once again. Don't you know wind can build up layers and then tear them down duuuh.

Regardless of everything. Think for a moment. 200 years ago, the early 1800s was a long time ago. Now a thousand years, wow. How about two thousand years. ten thousand. fifty. 100,000 that's an insane amount of time. 500,000 and then one million. That is unbelievable now do that hundreds of times over. Organic life has not been on this Earth that long, it's simply not true and is based solely on denying a global flood the thing every culture in the world says happened. And so taking the layers and saying there's no way a creature could be buried under the Earth without millions of years. Even without the flood we know that's not true. Because we have seem massive layers form in less than a few years from single events.

Fledgling science is done without experiment. Real science has been done on the layers of the Earth first by a Frenchman. And many creationist have continued to do such experiments. Evolutionist will continue to ignore that what they hoped would be a geological column turned out to be an absolute mess of layers mostly sea life. Add to this no transitionary fossils. Trees running through layers, dinosaur soft tissues and all the rest of it.

Of course this has been posted here. But this is how the layers formed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFST2C32hMQ
[Hide] (131.5KB, 1280x566)
Have enough of "Ancient ocean."
"Space dust did it!"
"Another mass extinction event!"
"Living fossil!"
"The animals then rafted."
"After 4.6 millions years."

The decimal numbers are always the worst because it's hard to imagine ignorance in that case. For how long has it been said the Universe is X.X billions of years old. Oh it turns out the very precise number was off by billions and billions of years and that's constant these are people throwing nonsense at you. "Oh surely don't be silly, these are experts, SCIENTISTS, smart respectable people are giving me my information, just like when I go up the ranks of politics I eventually find the smart people running things."
I need that clip of the woman saying life is about looking up at the stars because we are all formed by star stuff. Does that sound familiar to you at all? Does that maybe raise eyebrows when people say they are made of stars and star dust is the great creator. Sound like oooh maybe worshipping the hosts of heaven worshipping the stars I don't know. Atheists really think we've reached the final age. No. We are just the same as we always have been and in the near future all your religion will be laughed at, it won't even be considered scientific because it never was scientific but academic. It doesn't follow the scientific standard it's a theory.

"It's no good my simple chum, you must understand religion evolves over time such as Christianity it actually came from such and such and was developed during such cultures."
But of course evolution has never evolved. Never changed. Everything you believe didn't come from a certain time with a certain agenda and has had to constantly change to fit with the evidence it's totally different. "Well science is always changing we just go with what the facts are." ooh. absolutely, absolutely. Definitely. 100%, outta sight in the pocket, groovy mama.

Even for Christians they struggle to really actually accept that God designed and created they want a naturalistic way for water to get on the Earth it needs to be explained it can't just be God. That's dumb because when I was growing up media said that country hicks are dumb and they say "God did it" all the time but I'm smart and with it I explain things. Evolution was done by God! Such is the effect of a world today.
[Hide] (6.8MB, 640x360, 00:58)
[Hide] (7.3MB, 500x500, 03:20)
[Hide] (741.3KB, 1252x694)
HO HO HO. Once again just in time to save the thread! Really beating a dead horse at this point. BEFORE an evolutionist starts talking to you about "your grandaddy was a fish" and fish to fishermen. Ask them to explain how life began how about have a starting point for your religion.
Nine hour series destroying Abiogenesis. 
Or the simple Discovery Science series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlmgFFBBopM
Why dinosaurs aren't buried with humans (even though they're buried with millions of modern animals anyways)
Kent Hovind gives up on evangelism and resorts to just making fun of evolutionist now.
The Coconino Sandstone.
Organic programming.
Sleeping beauty added to evolutionist fairy tails

Crev.info has articles about antarctic forests. All people agree the Earth was once totally tropical (Paradise). But I actually think for various reasons the Garden of Eden may be Antartica. The original top of the world, and it is elevated like Eden, the confusion is always over the river names which probably just got named again after Noah.
It is sad what kids are being told. I backslid major this week, please pray for me to be kept out of Vanity Fair and remember my bonds.
Replies: >>21151
>human tailbone as evidence of monkey to man
I think this website is a bit out of date. Evolutionist don't even use this nonsense anymore. In fact evolutionist have largely given up at this point because there still isn't a single piece of evidence for their religion. Not one.
Replies: >>21152
[Hide] (611.8KB, 446x522)
But I did want to come back here today to post the updated page I have: https://docdro.id/YZEWDOl
It's great for giving to unsaved people who are spending all day watching internet videos, if they can take just a few minutes out of their day to hear the message. I've seen some results from it and I never posted it here. Has nothing to do with this thread, but I don't think anyone cares about this board so I post here you can look at it. I'd like help with it, but I'd need to find other christians to help, not /christian/ posters.

I didn't post this for some reason when I was here last: https://crev.info/2022/09/dinosaur-skin-dazzles-scientists/
This might be one of the most interesting ones even more so than the Alberta find. It'll be cool when they dig it out.

I didn't notice that was the talkorgins website sorry, obviously everyone knows about it. It's the "earlychristianwritings.com" but for biology instead and it's just as bad. But as long as they use all the standard fancy terms and assume their religion is correct going on about all these made up eras and they snow job people. The evolutionists have had the same dirty bathtub full of all the supposed evidence for evolution while ignoring the real on the ground science and discoveries being done and especially removing carefully the things they don't like. Confuciusornis is not part of a "transitional fossil set from dinosaur to bird"... it's a bird, which lived in what is now China and according to evolution-world existed long before the great magical age of dinosaurs just like many non-extinct birds we find with dinosaurs. You have to literally know you're lying to write stuff like this and that's what's so disgusting because things have not changed since the early 1900s. And people have every right to keep bringing up the history of evolution religion because it hasn't changed. They still take 3 bone fragments and call it a transitional fossil, they still say "evolution is a fact because my professor believed it."
And christians are free not to care, it really doesn't matter, except we know evolution-religion has done and continues to do massive damage to children and it's abusive to drill this into the heads of children knowing that it's being supported by at best rotting toothpicks.

I hope everyone has a day of sorts. I recently got married and I just want everyone to know and please pray for our marriage. Preacher once said he wasn't sure if he loved Jesus more than his wife, which I thought was crazy to say. But I understand now.
Replies: >>21153
> It's the "earlychristianwritings.com" but for biology instead and it's just as bad. 
What's your issue with earlychristianwritings? Is it that it's 90% cringe gnosticist works?
Replies: >>21154
[Hide] (1.9MB, 02:05)
One simple problem is this, this one thing I say: 'According to the website at least half of the New Testament is pseudographical.'
And I recently posted about the New Testament timeline in the questions answers thread which you can read. The idea that Acts or Luke could have been written in 130 AD, the fact they even put that as a possibility... I hope whoever runs that website comes to reality. It's an anti-christian website, nay, worse, it is an "academic-christian" website, the kinds of people who want to take a "realistic naturalistic approach", behold these people speak great words: Let's be reasonable my fellow Christians, of course II Peter wasn't actually written by Peter, let's be reasonable now Jesus was a man of sorts and behold he spoke great things but let's try to figure out what really happened because the 30+ first century documents are all lies and me 2,000 years later shall uncover the mystery of what really happened because I went to university and I am a reasonable man and I'll tell you another thing I don't believe in that man Samson picking up a jawbone of an ass, I don't believe about that whole Adam and Eve thing, I don't believe about that whole global flood the most documented ancient event.

I have posted my own NT timeline in the other thread, I don't know if I'll create a document full of all the reasoning for my timeline because it'd take forever to write it all out. But under no circumstance is 70 AD the earliest date for the letter of James. James died in 62 AD. What reason is the letter automatically pseudographical? I'll tell you why, because this person running the website wants people to doubt the Bible. The reasoning is very funny though because the idea is James sounds too Christian to have been written in the 40s AD. And yes I agree James is actually very Christian, people say James didn't understand that Jesus died for the forgiveness of man's sins and to some extent that's true, Paul had to better explain from the old testament what exactly Jesus accomplished which wasn't fully understood yet by James and Peter, but at the same time nowhere in the letter of James does it come off as truly traditionally Jewish of the time, James doesn't talk about animal sacrifice at the temple and he mentions how they were not going to be judged by the Torah but by the law of freedom/liberty. Pretty radical statements and therefore in the eyes of someone who thinks Jesus was just a regular rabbi this letter must be a later fake. Nonsense evidently of a high order as despite what has been said it's also true James simply didn't understand the Gospel message fully when he wrote his letter in 41 AD and if it was written in 100 AD as the website claims is possible it would not be anything like it is written as it is very low in understanding and Jesus-worship.

And that's just James. You want to tell me II Timothy was written in 150 AD by some guy? II Timothy is so extensive and perfectly written to be just a real letter of Paul to Timothy, does the last chapter of II Timothy sound fake, for what reason is all this stuff there. But behold: Early christians were all apparently insane and evil and wicked and tricksters constantly writing fake letters about fake things out of thin air. It can't simply be that these letters are what they say they are and what early sources say they are.
And the idea that late additions to the christian faith could have been added is ridiculous, that is that because for example Matthew and Luke make clear the coming destruction of Jerusalem therefore they were written after it, despite the fact John doesn't include the prophecy and everyone agrees was written later. That's a whole annoying topic, in fact as someone who is extremely invested in the timeline, the fact that Paul makes it clear Matthew was written and available during 50s AD I say this: that website is garbage and a perfect example of college-kid illness. Written by someone who doesn't want to admit the university course they took was a waste of time and money and all they did was learn how to parrot the ideas of people claiming to be so smart with titles.
Replies: >>21164
He also has a massive page shilling for the Gospel of Thomas with user comments for every verse so you can take part in a circlejerk that thinks they have special knowledge that Jesus called himself wood.
>Do not trust the wisdom of this world. 
Ok, I don't trust you.
Replies: >>21184
[Hide] (6.2MB, 640x360, 02:16)
Trust me about what? Everything thing in the Bible is true. All the documents are not pseudographical and evolution-religion is a lie. So if you want to disbelieve the Bible and believe the world of the devil go ahead.

Think before you post next time, genuinely. Don't try to be clever and speak in catchwords try to think because this is not fun and games but life and death and lies against the one eternal truth. And that truth will make people like you rage and hate so long as you reject it.
Replies: >>21189
Further, under no circumstances should you make a religion, should you be seeking to invent a truth, are you so arrogant that you'll figure it out?
I don't want any ideas or beliefs in your stupid head, I want simple factual unshakable truth. Which is evident and obvious to all. There is no such thing as an atheists since God makes himself clear to all but they choose to ignore him. And so catchwords won't save you you'll be saying them all the way to eternal fire:
"Why me go to Hell if better than other people!?"
"But what am about other gods?"
"You did bad thing before but now tell me how live!?"
"Church did bad thing!"
"I like a religion which is useful to ME!"
"You say no trust world, but you live in world!"
"Me no agree with you are 'theology'!"
"God fault world bad."
"God fault me bad."
"World not so bad."
"Me not so bad."

And so on. Quite sick of having to hear it even just today. Some need to seriously grow up because this isn't a baby preschool time. The facts have been laid on the table. There's really nothing left to prove, there's nothing left to say. It's no longer a debate, it is an ultimatum: Yes or No. Personally I say yes, I would like eternal life and I am a sinner who deserves Hell so please forgive me through Jesus. Saying it now is easy. But most people in this world cannot say those simple words because of what God hates most, what is it? Pride. Going to Heaven doesn't mean being good it means being forgiven first and foremost, but you cannot be forgiven unless you want forgiveness in the first place because of only this; pride of self, hatred of God. Is anything else need to be found? What else do you need to know? Don't listen to the calvinists because it's not God's fault you are unredeemed, it's your own fault and you will know it forever that you kept rejecting truth, it was right there, not a secret, not some hidden knowledge but open in as much as it is open to everyone's personal opportunities. Why does this website randomly post before I finish writing?

"Why doesn't God just forgive me!?" You reject God's saving grace, he's already called and offered it to you. How much do you want God to do, does he need to take over your free will as well? 99% of the work isn't enough? Your 1% you need to do is too much, you poor baby. You literally can't chew the bread of life that's forced into your mouth. "No no please I'm so stuffed of sin you know I'm not sure about this new food, I'm so corrupt and lost anyhow." These people reject the holy Spirit which is trying his best to lead them.

I'm bothered today I had people listen and believe the good news, but they rejected it. Can you imagine that. Imagine accepting the truth as truth and simply rejecting it. These people give me constant pain with their foolishness and the hardness of their hearts. Then you show people evidences and proof of things it's the same response. Some people genuinely don't want eternal life with Jesus. I guess, it is how it is. It is painful because it is people I love as I love all people. Always think I'm done with this thread, see you soon though when maybe we find a live T-rex and evolutionist still remain in denial or whatever I don't know.
Think before you post next time, genuinely. Don't try to be clever and speak in catchwords try to think because this is not fun and games but life and death and lies against the one eternal truth.
[Hide] (82.4KB, 1080x644)
The Bible predicted evolution
Replies: >>21796
Hebrews 11:1-3
[Hide] (92.2KB, 446x255)
Genesis says that the Creation happened. It is not and never was a scientific thesis. God wouldn't do that to a bronze age people. How creation happened isn't stated. 

For ages, the godless said that the universe has always existed and always will exist. 

Then this guy, Father Lemaître, a professor at the Catholic University of Leuven discovered the big bang; the creation of the universe, of which there is no physical explanation of the cause. (yeah, you saw some godless jew say otherwise on YouTube just as they said there was no creation at all before the lie was put to that nonsense) 

Einstein dismissed it as "Catholic Science" as he was a plagiarist who didn't have much understanding of the work of Lorentz and Fitzgerald (aka Special Relativity) nor of the work of Hilbert (aka General Relativity) that he stole. 
When it came out that Einstein was laughably wrong again, as he was with his idiotic EPR "paradox" that showed he was ignorant both of SR and QM, he changed his tune and pretended to be the hero. A disgusting little man, that Einstein. Lets not even start on his sins against his daughter. 

Now the argument has changed from no creation per Genesis, to Genesis doesn't include the physics and biology of the creation. 

Stop falling for their lies. They'll just move the goal posts again.
Replies: >>21818 >>21834
>It is not and never was a scientific thesis. 
This is only relevant if Science is your god
>God wouldn't do that to a bronze age people
What's that, tell them the truth?
>How creation happened isn't stated
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Replies: >>21821
>>It is not and never was a scientific thesis. 
>This is only relevant if Science is your god
That doesn't even follow, logically. Sounds good tho'. 
Science is the study of God's creation. The scientist may or may not know this. 
A true Christian knows that he's studying God's creation, as is a real scientist when they understand the Big Bang and the creation of time and space as it has a non-physical origin, a supernatural origin.  

To expect that God would give man the entire understanding of the Universe to a bronze age people is sinful pride. They weren't made to understand it, they can't understand it - not all of it, and people never will understand all of it. God created this universe, even Lucifer, the greatest of the Angels, couldn't understand it. Lucifer's sinful pride and lust for the power of creation are what led to his downfall into the pit of hell. 

>>God wouldn't do that to a bronze age people
>What's that, tell them the truth
Science is not truth. It's a best guess at understanding God's creation. Every real scientist understand that their understanding is limited and if man's studies more that understanding will change e.g. Aristotal's "all moving things come to rest" to Newtons F=dP/dt and Galilean transformation to Lorentz and Fitzgerald "Invariant transformation", but that they get useful in making predictions.

I believe God made the Universe and that man's understanding is limited. 

I also believe that God can't tell the entire story of creation in the most quantum detail because we are small, limited beings who could never understand it all and thus, as I said, it was not a scientific thesis. 

<snip Genesis >

I didn't question that. It's a diversion
Replies: >>21830 >>21831
[Hide] (1.3MB, 4080x3072)
>They weren't made to understand it, they can't understand it - not all of it, and people never will understand all of it.
if i was to take a guess then i would assume it was a byproduct of His intelligence, Love. God is eternal, whats the point in existing if not to give the gift of life to another being. We even see this in humans, who were made in Gods image, through the process of childbirth.

tl;dr God's infinite intelligence created love and we are a byproduct of that event. Sounds kinda ironic doesnt it? Since love and intelligence are such polar opposites.
>That doesn't even follow, logically
Science is the name given by modern man to the strange god he worships. This god is a knowledge god like Thoth, so modern man has redefined all scholarship as the pursuit of this god. However, science is insufficient in very many areas. It is not necessary that a thing be "scientific" to be true, because "scientific" is a very narrow thing. Science is a false god
>the Big Bang
Big bang cosmology directly contradicts God's word.
>To expect that God would give man the entire understanding of the Universe to a bronze age people is sinful pride.
This is a strawman argument and even if it wasn't it is absurd. I believe everything God says is true, do you believe that? You seem to be arguing against it
>It's a best guess at understanding God's creation
Is God's word a "best guess", or is it absolutely certain?
>I didn't question that
You spent this entire post arguing why we should believe godless men working out their godlessness instead of it. This is the first step in the descent of the modernists.
Replies: >>21839
Big bang theory says nothing exploded into everything by purely physical processes.
>b-b-but a catholic invented it!!1!
Who cares? those retards invented indulgences.
Replies: >>21839 >>21840
>Science is the name given by modern man to the strange god he worships.
Says you. 
Doesn't say that in Scripture. 
>Big bang cosmology directly contradicts God's word.
A bold assertion that has no basis and doesn't refute that Genesis is not a scientific paper. 
No, it doesn't. There was nothing before it, and "before it" doesn't make sense. The only people I've heard this from have been Jews. It was the godless Jews who told us there was no creation in the first place. They were proven wrong.
Replies: >>21844
It doesn't matter so much that a Catholic scientist discovered the creation. 

Point being Catholics allow reason an science, and understand how both science and religion are both the study of God and God's creation. 

Those who don't understand the Bible would never grasp this.
>Doesn't say that in Scripture. 
How much does it say about the modern world Anon?
>A bold assertion that has no basis and doesn't refute that Genesis is not a scientific paper. 
Ok, Genesis isn't a scientific paper, that's still a strawman argument. My question was, is it true? Is your god named Science or Yahweh? How long halt ye between two points?
Replies: >>21882
This strawman that anyone who understands Gods creation denies God and worships "science" is ... well, lacking in effort. 
Science and Genesis are consistent, each in their own context. Science is the study of God's creation. It's not "one or the other". God gave you a Bible and a universe to read it in, pretty awesome, if you think about it.
Replies: >>21888
Is Genesis 1 true, yes or no?
Replies: >>21895
>>2178 (OP) 
>Mathew Solomon 11:1

Barbatos Primeval is canon when Jesus summons it to keep resurrecting his army so he can monologue with John about our heavenly father while they watch dudes kill each other and give Jesus's dudes server hax,
Sure, it's divine revelation. 
But it's not a scientific thesis explaining every minute detail of the physics of creation and later, evolution. 
It's a summary for intellects that are insufficient to understand. The Lord tells us to come to him as children, innocent and believing. 
But there are those who won't do that; their faith is weak and they insist on having every detail explained. 
That God exists is easy, the supernatural creation of all things. Now it's a matter of which religion is true; I accept the Bible, all of it. Genesis says God created the world in 7 days... I accept that I don't understand what a day means to God Almighty. I barely have it figured out in Special Relativity.
Replies: >>21897
Genesis wasn't written to God, it was written to men. Do you know what a day is? It's fine if you don't, because the text defines it
>and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
So it's a period of time from sunrise-to-sunrise, light and darkness. Also, it says there was plant life on earth before there were stars, the sun or the moon. Do you believe that?
>And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Replies: >>21904
Not even sure what you're on about. The Bible was divinely inspired by God. It's true. But it's not a scientific paper, there no F=dP/dt in there, nor is there any mention of DNA. 

If your faith is so weak and your understanding of God's creation is so weak that you lose faith and deny science because the Bible isn't literally science.... well. Not my problem.
Replies: >>21905
What science? Evolution? The big bang?

Skimming through this conversation I think I see where you're coming from. But if your goal is to say that atheists do not deny God then you're wrong. Just because they believe in a spontaneous creation of the universe by the collision of two objects which had no means of existing isn't the same as them believing in God.

If I interpret this conversation wrong then my apologies
Replies: >>21906
[Hide] (263KB, 1315x761)
> But if your goal is to say that atheists do not deny God then you're wrong. 
Christianity is the Belief that Jesus Christ is God, it's not belief that science has to comply with a 7000 year old earth and the 'exact' Biblical explanation of Creation. 

Father Lemaître's big bang doesn't have two objects to collide, or any object for that matter. 

Anyone who has a problem with Genesis needs to read the part in the Bible where they can't interpret it by themselves. 

I'm giving up now.
[Hide] (16.5KB, 1045x629)
>it's not belief that science has to comply with a 7000 year old earth and the exact Biblical explanation of Creation. 
We finally have our answer: no, you don't believe it. Proper science is thinking God's thoughts after Him, it starts with God has revealed and seeks to fill in any gaps which remain. The strange god of Science, which is men exercising their futility in an effort to be as gods, autonomously deciding their own truth, is not any which I worship.
Replies: >>21920
If God is the primordial intelligence as we assume then i think it is safe to say that He probably knew that it wouldnt just be bronze age cave men that would be reading the Bible.

Thats without getting into the scientific problems of evolution, many of which are pointed out in this thread.
Replies: >>21920
aswell, bronze age people are equally as capable of understanding things as modern man. the only difference is the knowledge we've aquired over the millenias we've existed. Why couldnt God have explained things in more detail if creation was truly more complex than we believe?

The only reason i could think of would be if God didnt want us to know, which is possible. Perhaps the creationist v evolutionist debate is a modernized test of faith. If that were the case then i guess its been rather successful since nobody has 110% proof of anything surrounding this issue really.

i will say that we didn't come from apes tho, i feel the Bible gives way too detail an emphasis for that to be too much up for debate. I also find it kinda strange that God would want His, for lack of a better word, self portrait to have come from a monkey. Although then again all animals are beautiful in God's sight. I would just think He'd want to hand craft it, seeing how important we are to Him and all,
I have no idea what you're on about, but science is not a god. You clearly don't need me to have your discussions, those voices in your head and yourself are having quite an interesting go. 
What the heck is a "primordial intelligence"? 
God is omnipotent. 
Truth Is, God did write an elaborate thesis on the standard theory explaining the big bang, but the ancient Israelites lost it when crossing the Dead Sea. To them, it was gibberish. 
>The only reason i could think of would be if God didnt want us to know, which is possible.
They didn't even have a way to write down the math. The whole idea is absurd. Pretty sure you atheists are just being silly now.
Replies: >>21921
>What the heck is a "primordial intelligence"? 
God, Yahweh, Whatever you want to call Him.
>Truth Is, God did write an elaborate thesis on the standard theory explaining the big bang, but the ancient Israelites lost it when crossing the Dead Sea. To them, it was gibberish. 
do you have proof of this or did you just make it up because ive never heard this claim before.
>They didn't even have a way to write down the math.
hebrew has numbers and it has letters and the ideas could be explained all the same. All God would really need to do is explain in more detail what actually occurred instead of giving us what you suggest is a allegory.
>The whole idea is absurd. Pretty sure you atheists are just being silly now.
im not an atheist.
Replies: >>21939
>God, Yahweh, Whatever you want to call Him.
"primordial intelligence" doesn't come close to "omnipotent" God. 
>do you have proof of this or did you just make it up because ive never heard this claim before.
I was addressing the absurd idea that God had to describe the physics of the creation to a bronze age people. They won't understand it, nor would they preserve it, so saying that because God didn't provide a scientific paper on proves "no God" or "no science" is a very poorly thought out fallacy. It doesn't follow.
>hebrew has numbers and it has letters and the ideas could be explained all the same. All God would really need to do is explain in more detail what actually occurred instead of giving us what you suggest is a allegory.
Absurd. They didn't even have real numbers, much less tensor calculus and complex numbers.  Again, it doesn't follow that it could be explained. It didn't even require explaining. God didn't put us here for that.
What the heck, people were posting in MY PERSONAL THREAD that I've been bumping for 900 years!!!!!!!? Without my permission too!? i sense a flogging in the synagogue.

I don't think there's anything left to say. Someone here said that it's not a scientific debate. YES, it is. That's all it is. I agree the bible says clearly the truth of what creationist say. But at the same time the Bible really doesn't address these things. This is much more a scientific debate. Although you can argue people do reject the Bible when they claim things like Noah's flood not being global but they say it's just allegorical or i don't know what nonsense they come up with for whatever reason. The only reason for billion year old Earth nonsense is what? for evolution? Because with enough birth defects a single cell can eventually turn into a sea sponge then a fish then a glowworm. No one has ever explained WHY they believe in evolution? What's the point, it is not in the bible and it has no part of any field of science it is simply not true and all evidence says it's not true. Or maybe the reason is to conform to paganism. The Babylonians went on about tens of thousands of years, then the Egyptians had their millions and now the evolutionist have their billions. And now with the James Webb dismantling the current age of the big bang are we going to just move to trillions? Why not.

'"Modern humans originated in Africa within the past 200,000 years "'
I would like EVERYONE to take this honestly to themselves and ask if they really believe this is true. Do you really realise how long that is and do you think that human civilisation only began strangely about 4-5 thousand years ago conveniently after the flood is said to happen and it began on the nearest river to where the Ark landed conveniently. And when you start getting into excuses for the missing 200,000 years it's just not biblical. These 200,000 years of people are not brought up. Neanderthals had bigger brains and better teeth and bones because they were better than us, everything is running down since the fall, all the stars are dying, they aren't forming. Entropy is killing everything. Humans today live among each other and have slightly different bone features, that's always been the case and many of our ancestors are buried underground. You can use different dating method techniques to support different timelines, but ask yourself if you really believe human beans have been on the Earth for 200,000 years and ask yourself why you even think that and look at the other side.
Replies: >>22478
Trey Smith has made a new video finally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3CQtIWnx7c
New crev.info: https://crev.info/2022/12/can-dna-last-2-million-years/
This article is always funny to me https://www.icr.org/article/paddlefish-american/
Pretty sure that the internet is not an echo chamber. 
Personal threads belong on Notepad on your computer or phone. Put it here and it's a public thread with the implied invitation to agree or disagree. 
>Someone here said that it's not a scientific debate. YES, it is. That's all it is.
God creates, science is the study of God's creation. God is sure and knows everything. The first rule of science is to know that you don't know. 
>I would like EVERYONE to take this honestly to themselves and ask if they really believe this is true. 
personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.
Replies: >>22551 >>22553
>The first rule of science is to know that you don't know. 
I know that God exists and the bible is His word, if you start your scientific inquiry without that it is sinful rebellion, plain and simple.
>The first rule of science is to know that you don't know. 
Wrong. Within the scientific endeavor, you build on what you do know, not on what you don't know. Cf. Isaac Newton's famous end-of-life quote.

And the first two steps of the scientific method is to "establish the initial conditions" "establish the point of view (or perspective)". This is why so many skeptics of Genesis 1 & 2 -- Christians and non-Christians alike -- get their critical analyses so wrong. 
>"Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters."[1]

Those were the initial conditions of the Earth. Formless, void, dark. The point-of-view is directly above (hovering over) the surface of a water-covered planet Earth. This is both scientifically-accurate as well as obviously Biblically truthful. Once you establish these two items in their proper order (initial conditions & point of view) then all the creation events described in Genesis 1 are both correct, and they are also in the exact scientific order. Quite an absolutely impossible accomplishment for just a archaic shepherd man, I'd say? 

No, any honest science endeavor will always attest to the truth of scripture. Given the book of Scripture and the 'book' of nature has the same Author, and given His immutable and truthful character, it simply cannot be otherwise, logically-speaking.

1. https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-2.htm (BSB)
Replies: >>22554
>Failure to do [t]his is why so many skeptics*
>Christianity is the Belief that Jesus Christ is God, it's not belief that science has to comply with a 7000 year old earth and the exact Biblical explanation of Creation. 
Claiming death brought man into the world is a clear heresy. 

Big bang, abiogenesis, evolutionism are all heresies.
-God created "And God said...", not nothing magically exploding into everything for no reason by purely physical processes.
-God created life and God created man in His image, not life magically coming into being on its own and man does not share common ancestry with maggots and earth worms and fish and banana trees.
-God finished his work on the 7th day, it was done--finish, he didn't need to have creation "evolve" for gorillions of years. 

Also, the earth being roughly 6000-7000 years old going by genealogy records in the scripture all the way back to Adam, who Christ referred to as the beginning when Christ talked about God making them male and female, isn't something that science has to "comply with" it's just a fact of reality and any "scientist" who rejects this plain truth proven by the rocks (geology), the animals, the stars, the comets, basically all of it; they're rejecting knowledge just because they don't like the source of that knowledge, i.e. being the Bible because then they'd have to recognize God in some capacity. Modern science is a bunch of godless heathen religious nuts, with their godless religion of millions of years being a magic wand that makes miracles happen despite being scientifically impossible and their godless religion of evolutionism which they force on kids in tax funded schools and which is the ONLY reason that idiotic fairy tale of evolutionistic transformationism is still alive.
Replies: >>22651
>Claiming death brought man into the world is a clear heresy. 

Again, the brozen age people didn't know much about the earth, and God gave them what they needed knowing they couldn't understand it all. 
I believe God created this entire universe. Not believing that is the true heresy. Denying bits of evidence of the creation is heresy.
Replies: >>23501
a video about geocentrism
Replies: >>22658
Two hours? And for what? if it's saying the earth is at the center of the universe then... the math gets really difficult and the physics is really bad. If it's say the earth orbits the sun, the sun orbits the galactic core, and the galaxy moves then nothing new. 

Back at the end of the 19th century, the US was considering stopping immigration of Jews as their IQ scores were dismal. They needed a propaganda campaign to show "Jews are smarter than goyim". 
And Einstein was a Jewish poster boy who stole SR from Lorentz and Fitzgerald, GR from Hilbert (and it's not even especially right) and Brownian motion from Thiel. He didn't discover the photo-electric effect and the physics is a plug and chug from the old quantum theory. 
Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics and his EPR paradox shows he didn't understand either quantum mechanics or SR. 
Einstein's personal life is one of a degenerate.
[Hide] (604.6KB, 1170x1887)
This is why God made blue haired whale feminists. They will dismantle evolutionXD. 
Everyone serves God, whether they want it or not.
Replies: >>23508
I don't know if I made this point yet in this thread, but while evidences are of great value in discrediting the myth of evolution, since evolutionism represents an unbelieving worldview and all attempts at a theistic conception of evolution are an effort to syncretize with naturalism, the strongest attack to be made against it would be to perform an internal critique to expose that it is built on a lie and to feed into the wider point that anti-theism presupposes theism. For example, we may ask the evolutionist if he believes evolution is true, why should he have any confidence that evolution is true? Since he believes he has arrived at this belief in some way by the application of his mental faculties, and evolutionism states that the mental faculties of a man are nothing more than highly evolved bacteria, why should have any confidence in them whatsoever? Perhaps the pond scum really evolved very poorly, and in such a way that the thing thinks its thinking makes a great deal of sense and cannot see it any other way, but is actually quite stupid and unavoidably far off the mark. We may further wonder why they would be trying to convince us that evolution or anything else is true, since persuasion presupposes some commonality in the mind so that I naturally reason in the same way that you naturally reason, but this seems very far fetched if everyone is a randomized primordial soup. Finally we can ask if his mind is simply this physical object subject to the laws of physics and not an immaterial soul, why he would think he believes anything because it is so rational and empirically sound, and not simply because that is what the laws of physics operating on the chemicals in his head compelled him to believe? Why is he trying to change our minds about anything, when all our beliefs are likewise reducible to the physical manipulation of electrified chemicals? 
It says a lot you see scripture as nothing more than the mythology of bronze age primitives. Genesis is an iron age text, by the way.
Replies: >>23510
>That Musk quote

Evolution is bankrupt out of the gate, and always was. It doesn't need voluminous, rolly-polly land masses to discredit it -- it discredits itself.

A better model needs to be found to explicate life's appearance on Earth. Oh wait...
[Hide] (61.2KB, 735x503)
Your expositing what I believe is termed The Argument from Reason, one of a train of arguments based on human-exceptionalism. It's a good one Anon.

IMO the current best one is simply that Moses' writing Genesis thousands of years before modern cosmology, and he got the so-called 'Big Bang' model correct. It's literally Christianity's strongest objective apologetic argument.

Why these skeptics (rightly) accuse us all of being a cult despite this profound evidence, is b/c of the widespread indoctrination of so-called 'Young Earth Creationism'. To wit; ''The Earth and indeed the entire universe is no older than 10'000 years.' Obviously ludricrous, both Biblically, and scientifically.
BTW regarding that pic, I might point out that there are only two objects in the picture that is a star (eg at lower right). Everything else is a galaxy or a cluster of them.
This is an unimaginably large volume just in this little wedge of the universe. It's literally billions of lightyears in depth.
>Your expositing what I believe is termed The Argument from Reason, one of a train of arguments based on human-exceptionalism
I'm not familiar with this argument, but I think I was making a transcendental argument. The argument is that the atheist must presuppose the reliability and reality of his mind in order to make a case for his worldview, but he has absolutely no basis for that presupposition in his worldview. In order to argue against God, he has to presuppose God. This is why the bible says the unbeliever is "without excuse" for his rejection of God, the underlying Greek word literally means "no defense", because any defense they could make to excuse their unbelief betrays their guilt.
>Moses' writing Genesis thousands of years before modern cosmology, and he got the so-called 'Big Bang' model correct.
Many Christians mistakenly believe that big bang cosmology reflects a creatio ex nihilo, however it is a naturalistic attempt to explain the existence of the cosmos like evolutionism is a naturalistic attempt to explain the existence of life. Big bang cosmology claims all the energy in the universe originally existed in a singularity which exploded outwards for no reason and condensed the energy into matter. It directly contradicts the Genesis 1 cosmology as it posits that amorphus energy became stardust became stars and then planets, whereas Genesis 1 states that such things were created from nothing, with the earth explicitly being created before the sun and stars. Big bang cosmology generates a prediction of the universe's age as over a dozen billion years old by looking at the positions of the cosmos, the rate of their acceleration and rolls them back until they converge in a single point, and then calculates how much time that would take. On the other hand the bible predicts an age of the universe of a few thousand years, in spite of exegetically indefensible attempts to shove the godless conclusions of secularists into the text.
Replies: >>23516 >>23994
[Hide] (1.9MB, 300x300)
His argument is actually the evolutionary argument against naturalism:
>The evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) is a philosophical argument asserting a problem with believing both evolution and philosophical naturalism simultaneously. The argument was first proposed by Alvin Plantinga in 1993 and "raises issues of interest to epistemologists, philosophers of mind, evolutionary biologists, and philosophers of religion".[1] The EAAN argues that the combined belief in both evolutionary theory and naturalism is epistemically self-defeating. The argument for this is that if both evolution and naturalism are true, then the probability of having reliable cognitive faculties is low. This argument comes as an expansion of the argument from reason, although the two are separate philosophical arguments.

>whereas Genesis 1 states that such things were created from nothing, with the earth explicitly being created before the sun and stars.
Genesis 1:2 also states that there were waters upon the plane of existence before the earth was created.

>Big bang cosmology generates a prediction of the universe's age as over a dozen billion years old by looking at the positions of the cosmos, the rate of their acceleration and rolls them back until they converge in a single point, and then calculates how much time that would take. 
Curiously scientific models don't even posit a fixed rate of time progression because time and spatial physical laws operate relativistically. Given that God has authority over all the laws of nature and that time perception can be distorted in an observer's frame of reference, it doesn't contradict empirical data at all that God's mighty hand can craft the entire universe in six days. I never see this tendency of the faithless to place arbitrary constraints upon God's power to justify their worldview pointed out, while their theoretical models but further enhance its viability.
Replies: >>23995
If I am understanding him correctly, Dr. Lisle is saying that it is true both that such and such galaxy is so and so billions of years old, and that it is 6,000 years old, because the sole difference between these propositions is the meaning of the word "year" at a distance? So that, from the perspective of the earth, it is really and fully true that the galaxies did not exist prior to the 4th day of creation, and from the perspective of the galaxies it is fully and really true that they existed billions of years before it, because there is no absolute time? It especially sounds like that's what he's saying when he says 
>So, what does all this mean?  What is its significance for the distant starlight issue?  For one, the conventionality thesis implies that the ancient visual synchrony convention is just as legitimate as the modern Einstein synchrony convention.  So, when we look at Alpha Centauri in a telescope, are we seeing it as it is now, or as it was 4.3 years ago?  If you have tracked the above discussion, then you know the answer is: both.  By the Einstein synchrony convention, we see it as it was 4.3 years ago, and by the visual synchrony convention, we see it as it is right now.  People are tempted to ask, “yes but which one is right?  When did the light really leave the star?”  But such questions are meaningless because they assume the false concepts of absolute time and a universal standard of simultaneity.
Replies: >>23904
Remember God literally also created the light. Imagine that you can use physical light as a chronological standard with an almighty God.
Why can we see starlight from more than 10k light years away?
Cause it was put there.
Replies: >>23989
smells like God of the gaps
Replies: >>23990 >>24005
It's only God of the gaps if you someone presume God doesn't operate the natural world as a priori sovereign. That doesn't mean the physical sciences aren't useful, but they are insufficient in their ability to explain existence.
Because space is a vacuum. Once the distances reach millions of LY, intervening dust causes a shift of the light during it's travel through into the red spectrum. Just like the Sun/Moon shift into red during risings/settings.

At cosmic scales, (~2Bn LY+), there's also an effect where the spacetime itself is stretching out which also causes a reddening Doppler shift of the galaxy light.

The face we can see the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (which is from literally about 340K years after the creation event) if actually pretty amazing. It's red-shifted all the way into radio waves only.

Hope that helps Anon.
>Many Christians mistakenly believe that big bang cosmology reflects a creatio ex nihilo,
That's not a mistake. In fact it's literally Christian's strongest argument for both a transcendetal Creator's existence, and His creation of our universe ex nihilo. These are objective, verifiable arguments that the seen universe began to exist out of that which is unseen -- directly in-line with Biblical claims in the matter.
Replies: >>24005
>His argument is actually the evolutionary argument against naturalism:
Fair enough, but the idea of Ayy Lmaos is just a Red Herring fallacy.
A) There are no exotic spots in the universe -- it's uniform in all directions.
B) Where'd the Ayy Lmaos come from?

There's a yuge train of both philosophical and scientific investigations into these questions spanning centuries (and more). Occam's Razor suggest that the Christian Bible's account of the creation of both the universe, and of life (particularly homo sapiens sapiens).

The Bible gets it right. Everywhere it's claims can be tested (like the universe's origin), it passes with flying colors.
Replies: >>24005
Because the light from them has reached us.
What atheists call "God of the gaps" is in more common parlance known as an argument.
On the big bang model, the energy of the universe itself *might* be created from nothing. Absolutely nothing else. Not the stars, not the planets, no those all came to be naturally on their own. It is naturalistic. The bible says the stars did not exist, and then God called them into existence. They stand in contradiction. 
Of course the bible is always right, but do I know it is right because I first assumed it to be false and then went out and looked and saw it was right, or did I first know it was right and was then able to see how the puzzle pieces fit together in light of it? Christian belief is not founded on the basis of evidences, but is properly basic and a priori. I don't believe in the bible because God has proven Himself to me after a hard trial, I believe in proof because I believe in the bible. So when we look up at the stars we should not assume a neutral foundation that fails to assume Christian truth and work from there through theories of our own design, but should reason about the creation in light of what God has revealed explicitly in His word. And on this, what He has revealed is that He created all things from nothing in the span of 6 days about 6,000 years ago.
Replies: >>24009 >>24024
>On the big bang model, the energy of the universe itself *might* be created from nothing. 
Lol. Sure, happens all the time. :^)
>They stand in contradiction. 
What 'they' do you mean? Science and Theology? Most certainly they do not. Who's been filling your head with lies, I wonder? And even were it so, they both are mere contrivances of man. God is not Theology, any more than creation is Science. Mankind is fallible. God is not fallible.

>Of course the bible is always right
That has yet to be measured, friend (though I doubt not it will prove so). The Bible is trustworthy as the living, breathing, Word of God because of it's fulfilled prophecies, if by no other measure. These are objective. There are plenty of mysteries of the Christian walk that are not observable however, but because we can trust the Bible in the things that can be tested (like the origin of the universe and of mankind), then its bears strong merit as trustworthy also in these deeper matters as well.
Replies: >>24010
>Lol. Sure, happens all the time. :^)
I'm sure you are not ignorant of the several theories of atheists intended to account for a big bang. The problem with appealing to apologetic pragmatism is that the big bang does not present an origin but an event horizon. If you will reason on the basis of a false neutrality and pretend like you aren't making any Christian assumptions in dealing with the evidence then you have absolutely no basis to make any claims concerning what was prior to the big bang because you have no data on it nor any conceivable means of getting any. Maybe reality is caught in an infinite cycle of explosion and implosion, who knows. 
>What 'they' do you mean? Science and Theology?
The big bang theory and holy writ.
>Who's been filling your head with lies, I wonder?
Well, if the big bang theory is true, then the answer is God, because what His word says cannot be reconciled with it. Science is a formalized system of inductive reasoning, it cannot "say" anything and as such nothing can contradict it, scientists say things and they can be contradicted but they cannot hold the weight of science itself. The argument which we are having right now is manifestly not about science since no scientific data has been brought up nor could it conceivably be relevant, the topic we are discussing is philosophy of science. The attempt to equate the issues with theology and science and assert that theologians have their expertise and astronomers have theirs is little more than a brazen attempt to silence the theologians from having any opinion at all, even one which is purely theological. But if theology and science are both held to be at the least means of determining the truth, then they both ought to be heard. In particular the attempt to silence the theologians is an attempt to subjugate sacred scripture itself (which is the sole dataset of theology) to the whims of secular scientists, forbidding it from saying anything which is not in accord with the creatures of the academy. The majority of scientists now say that man is the product of a natural evolution beginning from a single molecule, should we be reinterpreting scripture to fit that theory? Most scientists now assert that homosexuality is part of human nature equal to opposite-sex attraction, perhaps we should be reconsidering our theology in light of that? And of course, most of them will say that God does not exist, so we're going to have to give that belief up too. Where will out subjugation to the wisdom of the world end, and on what basis?
>That has yet to be measured, friend (though I doubt not it will prove so). The Bible is trustworthy as the living, breathing, Word of God because of it's fulfilled prophecies, if by no other measure. These are objective. There are plenty of mysteries of the Christian walk that are not observable however, but because we can trust the Bible in the things that can be tested (like the origin of the universe and of mankind), then its bears strong merit as trustworthy also in these deeper matters as well.
Scripture warns us against being led with the subtlety with which the serpent deceived Eve away from the purity and simplicity of devotion which is to Christ. The serpent challenged the legitimacy of God's word and presented Eve with a choice, when she made her decision on what basis ought she have made her decision? If she has said no because she was worried about getting fat and losing her figure, she would have sinned even in making the correct decision because she would have acted on the basis of her own concerns and not God's command. Her duty was to reject the serpent's offer on the basis that God had said "Ye shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". While scripture has many proofs by which it shows itself to be the word of God it is to be received not because of the testimony of any man or council but because it is the word of God. I do not presume to sit on the bench and put God in the dock. I know with certainty that everything scripture says is true not on the basis of any proofs but because He who speaks it can make no errors. God is infallible, and the bible is the word of God. Infallible statements are certainly true, not possibly true, not probably true, but absolutely certainly true because by definition it is impossible that they are wrong. 

Peter said that the house of Israel could be assured with certainty that God had made Jesus both Lord and Christ. Luke said he wrote his gospel so the reader could have certainty concerning the word of truth. Paul said that we are to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. By faith Noah built the ark in preparation for a flood even though he had no evidence. By faith Abraham offered his only son on the altar without evidence that God's promises were true. Yahweh swore by nothing but Himself, and the Lord spoke as one having authority. We do not and ought not believe because God has proven Himself to us in our rational autonomous wisdom, but because we are in submission to our creator like a little child to his father, believing without question and without doubt everything He says. I don't know that what the bible says is true because God has proven Himself to me in this or that area and therefore He is "generally reliable" and what He says over here is "very probably true", I know with absolute certainty that everything the bible says is true because God has spoken it, and I need no evidence to know it. When unbelievers demanded the Lord prove Himself to them He rejected their demand and said "This wicked generation shall be given no sign save the sign of Jonah". I cannot emphasize this enough, God's word is certain, and it is not justified by anything external to itself. The bible has authority on everything of which it speaks, and it speaks about everything. The scientist should take it for granted that Genesis 1-3 is true in the same way he takes it for granted that the earth is round, and interpret the empirical evidence in light of this which is known to be true. Proper science is thinking God's thoughts after Him.
Replies: >>24026
>What atheists call "God of the gaps" is in more common parlance known as an argument.
It was a concept thought up by a catholic as a response to bad apologetics.
Replies: >>24031
>I'm sure you are not ignorant of the several theories of atheists intended to account for a big bang. 
Certainly of some, sure. They are all fundamentally-flawed and completely irrelevant to either the Scientific or the Theologic endeavors.

>The big bang theory and holy writ.
So Science and Theology. Again, totally in concordance, Humanists, Atheists, and Young-Earthers notwithstanding.

>conflating our God-given minds with Eve's spiritual sins
Lol no. I've got one for you, my long-winded friend:
>"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of kings to search it out."
https://biblehub.com/proverbs/25-2.htm (BSB)

God specifically created this universe He made to enable us to uncover it's amazing truths. Every.single.one. point back to Him. His fingerprints are all over it! Cheers. :^)
Replies: >>24031
I doubt that and it doesn't matter anyways because atheists use the phrase against any argument for the existence of God, if God is the answer to any question, it's "God of the gaps". Because in spite of what they claim evidence has nothing to do with atheism, they don't believe because they aren't willing to believe and reject any conceivable evidence a priori.
>So Science
No sir you may not equate this theory with science itself. 
>Again, totally in concordance
I agree but we aren't having that conversation right now. If somebody asks me how I reconcile science and religion I answer that I don't reconcile friends. The question is whether scientific evidence should be interpreted according to man's theories or God's revelation.
>>conflating our God-given minds with Eve's spiritual sins
>Lol no. I've got one for you, my long-winded friend:
Our God-given minds are not perfect like they were in the garden, we've got sin in the way messing us up even in our intellect. It is just as possible to sin intellectually as any other way. When Eve fell, why did she fall? Because she had already dared to question the truth of God's word and put it on equal footing with the serpent's imagination. That was the subtlety we were warned about, "Yea, hath God said?"
>He made to enable us to uncover it's amazing truths
And is there only one way to uncover them? Is what God said about His creation in His word not a way to learn? Genesis 1 says that the sun, moon and stars were created on the 4th day of the earth's existence, is that true? Genesis 3 says death did not exist in the world until a human ate a fruit, is that true? Genesis 7 says a flood covered the entire earth, is that true? I would appreciate yes or no answers to these questions.
Replies: >>24033
Thanks for putting words in my mouth I never said, Mr. Strawman-kun. You seem to be literally unable to believe you can be both an honest Scientist, and an honest Christian. This is clearly not the case, nor has it ever been. I can hardly put thing on this general topic better than Professor Ken Samples, so I'll leave you with his views on the topic.

Again, Cheers. :^)
Replies: >>24035
>Thanks for putting words in my mouth I never said, Mr. Strawman-kun. You seem to be literally unable to believe you can be both an honest Scientist, and an honest Christian
I don't know what words I'm supposed to have put in your mouth or what strawman I'm supposed to have been attacking, but I must once again reject the equation of this secular theory with science itself. Science cannot be either true or false because science is a formalized system of inductive reasoning, it does not contain propositions. It may be a tool to distinguish between truth and falsehood, but science itself is not true or false. The big bang theory is propositional, and it is false. How bout this: young earth creationism is science, you're a science denier and you're pitting science and religion against each other. There, I just made the very same "argument" as the only point you've made in this whole conversation. It's like making a syllogistic argument and then identifying your syllogism as logic itself so anyone who disagrees with you for any reason must be rejecting logic itself, it's argument by declaring oneself to be correct. Dr. Jason Lisle has said before that "deep time is a false god" and I'm starting to appreciate that because you seem totally unwilling to question this belief as if it were an article of faith. 

Brother, what I am telling you is the emperor has no clothes. I'm not unable to believe one can be both an honest scientist and an honest Christian, but I am unable to believe that you can be both a secular scientist and a consistent Christian, I do believe that. The question at hand is does the bible have authority on astronomy, and is what it says true? If you fear being degraded, persecuted and mocked for standing up for the bible on this point don't worry, the world is going to treat you that way regardless as long as you stand for any part of the truth, so why not stand for all of it?
[Hide] (336KB, 800x831)
These days I'm worried less about questions of Creation models and theistic evolution and increasingly more about the absolute disregard for the created order displayed by the scientific community.
Replies: >>24042
we shouldn't expect anything good from atheist and pagan scientists
Replies: >>24043
No, we really shouldn't.. It's still blackpilling knowing that they'll really manipulate the world and the human and animal body in any way that's physically available to them, no matter what the moral or ethical issues or consequences may be.
[Hide] (2.4MB, 5100x6600)
[Hide] (945.6KB, 2550x3300)
I was looking into the calculation of the date of creation recently, and I found out that the popularly known description of it's process, that it was done just by "adding up all the lifespans given in the Old Testament," was completely inaccurate. However I also found out that the Jewish Masoretic Text, finalized in the 10th century AD, gives completely different dates for the lifespans of the patriarchs from the Greek Septuagint, which was been used by the church since antiquity. The Masoretic Text has corruptions such as saying that Saul was 1(!!) year old when he was anointed king over Israel, and the majority of translations have to amend this either by saying the events of 1 Samuel 13 were two years into his reign or using a Septuagint reading of him being 30 years old. The ancient sources on these variations appear to agree with the Septuagint. In my research, I found this article about how this changes the calculation of the date of creation and on the biblical timeline, and how the changes appear to have to been made to satisfy Jewish folklore: 

>   Test case for accuracy of LXX vs. Masoretic: Shem as Melchizedek 

>a.       Jews today believe that Shem is Melchizedek because the Masoretic chronology has Shem living down past the birth of Jacob. It is impossible for Shem to be Melchizedek using the Septuagint chronology because Shem dies 600 years before Abraham is born. 

>b.      If we can find a single ancient literary source that shows that the Jews believed Shem was Melchizedek, this would falsify the theory that the Jews corrupted the Hebrew chronologies of Genesis 5, 11 at Zippori in 160 AD. 

>c.       In fact, just like the literary sources above all validate the longer LXX chronology, so too do all the literary sources refute the MT chronology because none of them equate Shem with Melchizedek. 

>d.      100 BC: The earliest Jewish literary sources make no connection of Shem was Melchizedek as witnessed in the Dead Sea Scrolls: 1QGenesis Apocryphon. 

>e.      At the time of Christ, Jewish messianic expectation was of the arrival of Melchizedek as a “heavenly being” not Shem as witnessed in the Dead Sea Scrolls: 11QMelchizedek. 

>f.        160 AD: The earliest literary source that equates Melchizedek with Shem is Seder Olam Rabbah in 160 AD 

>g.       The Seder Olam again, is the first reference in history and was the basis for corrupting the pre-Masoretic text in the chronologies of Gen 5 and 11. 

What do /christian/ anons think? Which one is probably the correct chronology? This information makes me lean towards the Septuagint as being more authentic than the MT despite its shortcomings, but others say that the MT is the inspired text.
I also noticed that Paul also seems to reference the Septuagint chronology in Acts 13:16-19:
>So Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen: The God of this people Israel chose our fathers and lifted up the people during their stay in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He led them out from it. And for a period of about forty years He put up with them in the wilderness. And when He destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land as an inheritance—all of which took about 450 years.

This makes sense using Genesis and the LXX Exodus 12:40 which state that the time the Israelites were in Egypt were 400 years, then they were in the desert for 40, and lastly the conquest of Canaan under Joshua was 7-8 years for a total of 448 which Paul rounds off to 450. If we went with Masoretic Text Exodus, it states that the time in Egypt was 430 years (which contradicts Genesis) and the total would have been 480 years instead.

It really doesn't seem to make sense for Christians to use the MT uncritically.
Replies: >>24183
I watched the related video on the channel you mentioned though which points out that Paul may have been counting from the weaning of Isaac in Galatians 3:17 which wouldn't work with this proposal, so I think some additional work needs to be done with what Paul meant by 450 years in that verse.
Replies: >>24189
After considering a few events for what the 450 years was referring to, it feels like it would best suit the period from Moses' birth until Samuel began his public ministry after the Ark was 20 years at Kirjath Jearim in 1 Samuel 7. 80 years for Moses' life, 40 years in the desert, 8 years for Joshua's conquest, and 322 years of the Judges.
I had an epiphany recently. Virtually all evolutionist arguments will inevitably allege that X trait of a creature developed for Y purpose, they'll pretty much always use the phrase "evolutionary purpose". What I realized is that when they do this, that means we win the debate. Because supposing that something has a *purpose* presupposes what? That it was *designed* for that purpose, not that the thing randomly magically appeared on its own for no reason. Evolutionist arguments actually suggest intelligent design and evolutionism is essentially an irrational superstition that unwittingly posits some kind of magic causes creatures to suddenly and fundamentally change when they "need" to. I think this is something to keep in mind when dialoging with atheists and something to pounce on whenever it comes up, so we can show them their worldview actually doesn't make any sense.
Replies: >>25082
Yes, and this has long been recognized by researchers. Specifically within origins of life research, the concept has been derisively-termed 'The hidden hand of God', relating to investigators setting up initial conditions, etc. in their labs, that are completely irrelevant to the initial conditions on Earth's surface ~3.8Gya.

>when they do this, that means we win the debate.
Not quite that simple IMO. When men can look out at this vast and truly amazing creation spread out all around us, and still say unironically in their hearts 'There is no God!111', then you're dealing with a serious psychosis condition, indeed a spiritually-depraved one. No amount of argumentation, nor directly observable, objective facts are going to sway someone in such a state.

My recommendation isn't to focus on 'turning' the ones adamantly opposed to God (or indirectly to you for proclaiming Him), and rather focus on the ones who are unsure. They are far more numerous, and indeed far closer to God already.
[New Reply]
415 replies | 104 files | 28 UIDs
Show Post Actions



Select the solid/filled icons
- news - rules - faq -
jschan 1.4.1