Neither is yours.
Gasoline is a result of God's Creation. The fact that gasoline is still usable single handedly defeats millions years. To say otherwise proves that the belief in mills years is unfalsifiable therefore nonscientific.
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
[__ Science __ ] The Chicken or the Egg?
- Thread starter AIG.com
- Start date
Please reread what I have posted, carefully. I have not spoken about anything about the impotence of science.
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,356
- 2,557
But your interpretation of the Bible isn't the Bible.
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now, but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
peacefulscience.org
This is the real damage that YE does to Christian faith. Gasoline completely refutes YE creationism, a belief which harms those who were indoctrinated to believe otherwise.
As I reminded you.
As you probably know, even YE creationists, working for oil companies, had to turn away from their religious assumptions in order to do their jobs:
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now, but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism
In memory of Glenn Morton (1950-2020), Peaceful Science is republishing his personal account and testimony of leaving Young-Earth Creationism.
peacefulscience.org
This is the real damage that YE does to Christian faith. Gasoline completely refutes YE creationism, a belief which harms those who were indoctrinated to believe otherwise.
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,356
- 2,557
The reason science is respected is that nothing else humans can do, works as well for understanding the physical universe. We might like it, or we might hate it, but the fact remains. We just have to find a way to reconcile with the reality.
Please tell me why any of this refutes the fact that gasoline should be unusable if millions years is true.
What youve given is a non sequitur.
Are you admitting that literal oil is threatening your immense faith in the Deep Time Narrative?? Hmmmm....
So you claim your interpretation is true?
The fact it's still usable after supposedly "millions years" proves otherwise.
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,356
- 2,557
It's not a fact. It's just an assumption someone told you was a fact. What you've given is a non seqitur.
Gasoline completely refutes YE creationism.
Even YE creationists in the oil industry say otherwise:
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either.
They realized after facing the actual reality, that YE is wrong. No way to run away from it.
The reason science is respected is because it's politically mandated and publicly funded leading to bias and corruption.
Simple fact. The earth can be young but created in an adult state including oil deposits and rocks that carbon date millions of years old.
No scientist was present at the time of creation therefore no scientist can be a witness as to when creation occurred. A scientist can ONLY speculate as to how creation occurred. The supposed age of rocks is not in any way conclusive or even compelling as evidence. Same with the fossil records.
In New Mexico there used to be a dinosaur footprint in fossilized mud, in the middle of that footprint were human tracks. That footprint was destroyed intentionally... I wonder why???
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,356
- 2,557
Chanting slogans they indoctrinated into you won't help. Most research is funded by businesses. Did you really not know that?
The United States is the largest performer of research and experimental development (R&D), with $806 billion in gross domestic expenditures on R&D in 2021, followed by China, with $668 billion. While overall funding of R&D in the U.S. continues to rise rapidly, the share of basic research funded by the federal government has fallen in the previous decade. Business funding of U.S. R&D surpassed federal funding in the 1980s and now dominates the U.S. R&D enterprise. These are among the findings in Research and Development: U.S. Trends and International Comparisons published today by the National Science Board (NSB).
National Science Board
NSB governs NSF, develops Science and Engineering Indicators, and advises the President and Congress on S&E policy, research and education issues.
www.nsf.gov
God could have created the universe last Thursday, and faked all the evidence the way you suggest. But that would require an appalling dishonesty on the part of God. So not a very plausible excuse, if you believe in the real God who created all things.
Your fellow YE creationists who are familiar with the evidence, say you're wrong. Would you like me to show you?
You have that a bit garbled. The supposed "man tracks" were in the Paluxy River bed in Texas. And the story was debunked by YE creationists from Loma Linda University.
Comments from YE creationist John Morris:
The main problem of geologic origin for biblical catastrophists stems from the fact that underlying the Paluxy River basin is nearly eighty-five hundred feet of sedimentary rock. According to the catastrophic model, this must all have been laid down by the flood of Noah's day. The problem is how could man and dinosaurs witness such massive deposition at the beginning stages of the flood and survive long enough to leave their prints so high up in the geologic column?
Paluxy Man -- The Creationist Piltdown | National Center for Science Education
Creationists, by citing examples of fossils that are supposed to be in the wrong order for evolution, often try to prove that the geological time scale is in error.
Chanting slogans they indoctrinated into you won't help. Most research is funded by businesses. Did you really not know that?
The United States is the largest performer of research and experimental development (R&D), with $806 billion in gross domestic expenditures on R&D in 2021, followed by China, with $668 billion. While overall funding of R&D in the U.S. continues to rise rapidly, the share of basic research funded by the federal government has fallen in the previous decade. Business funding of U.S. R&D surpassed federal funding in the 1980s and now dominates the U.S. R&D enterprise. These are among the findings in Research and Development: U.S. Trends and International Comparisons published today by the National Science Board (NSB).
Don't be so trusting. Those guys lie to you, and if you just accept what you're told, you'll be theirs to use.National Science Board
NSB governs NSF, develops Science and Engineering Indicators, and advises the President and Congress on S&E policy, research and education issues.www.nsf.gov
God could have created the universe last Thursday, and faked all the evidence the way you suggest. But that would require an appalling dishonesty on the part of God. So not a very plausible excuse, if you believe in the real God who created all things.
Your fellow YE creationists who are familiar with the evidence, say you're wrong. Would you like me to show you?
You have that a bit garbled. The supposed "man tracks" were in the Paluxy River bed in Texas. And the story was debunked by YE creationists from Loma Linda University.
Comments from YE creationist John Morris:
The main problem of geologic origin for biblical catastrophists stems from the fact that underlying the Paluxy River basin is nearly eighty-five hundred feet of sedimentary rock. According to the catastrophic model, this must all have been laid down by the flood of Noah's day. The problem is how could man and dinosaurs witness such massive deposition at the beginning stages of the flood and survive long enough to leave their prints so high up in the geologic column?
Paluxy Man -- The Creationist Piltdown | National Center for Science Education
Creationists, by citing examples of fossils that are supposed to be in the wrong order for evolution, often try to prove that the geological time scale is in error.ncse.ngo
No, I am talking about something different in New Mexico..
Not a slogan, not indoctrination... my own thoughts...
Quoting other people is a pointless exercise with me.. why? Because none of them experienced creation and therefore there are no authorities on creation. There is what the Bible says and that's it...
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,356
- 2,557
But you can't show us any evidence for it? Making unsupported assertions is a pointless exercise with me. Were you perhaps thinking of Oñate Man? It's not what you think.
An obvious hoax with a hominid skeleton associated with a allosaurus. Who would believe that?
We all experience creation. It's still going on. You are a creation of God. Every day is a creation of God. Here's the Christian take on it:
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Why not just accept it His way?
I do accept His way. I agree that God and His power are readily visible in His creation.. He created everything after their own kinds. No kind ever became another kind.
When I say no one was there to observe creation. I mean that no one was there to witness God's creation of the universe, the Earth and the living things upon the earth. The Bible says that work took 7 days. We can have all kinds of arguments about the length of those days and all that garbage, it simply doesn't matter.
However science has no input on that 7 days no matter how old their human observations say those rocks are.. Science is not how we validate scripture. If the Bible says the earth was completely flooded in Noah's time. Science is incapable of proving that wrong even if they think it can.
Science has no authority over the Bible and I mean none! The Bible has absolutely no obligation to Science it is science's obligation to square itself to the bible.
The Bible is God's word
Science is man's word.. many times they agree. When they don't agree Science is wrong.
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,356
- 2,557
The Bible doesn't say that no kind of living thing ever became a different kind. If you accept it His way, you wouldn't be adding to His word.
Of course, the Bible doesn't say the world was completely flooded. And science, accordingly, finds no evidence to support it.
Fortunately, God told us that the earth brought forth living things, which science has been increasingly finding evidence to confirm. You see, He left evidence for us to understand His creation.
Right. Most of us accept that the "days" of Genesis were not literal 24-hour days. But it really doesn't matter as far as His message in Genesis goes.
Because science is not about the purpose of His creation. That's not what science is for.
Since the Bible doesn't say that the whole Earth was flooded, that's not an issue. But the evidence does indeed rule out a worldwide flood.
No, that's wrong. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. Science is about understanding the physical universe. Science is unable to confirm or to deny the supernatural.
Never happens. But of course, science sometimes disagrees with man's interpretation of His word.
Last edited:
Now your just denying what the Bible says.. the Bible says the whole earth was flooded all animal and human life currently on earth is descendant from the Animals on Noah's arc...
the life history of human beings does not begin in Africa.. it began along the Euphrates river then later humans nearly went extinct except for those individuals on the Arc... science has absolutely no authority to say orherwise.
Humans are not decendant from a common ancestors with other primates.
- Sep 10, 2021
- 5,498
- 4,774
I would agree with OnlySaved here Barbarian. 2nd Peter 3 states:
For scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 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 creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
The Greek here is δι' ὧν ὁ τότε κόσμος ὕδατι κατακλυσθεὶς ἀπώλετο· You would have to make a case that κόσμος here somehow means something other than "the world," which was its common meaning.
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,356
- 2,557
And here's the story on that...
Luke 2:1 And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled.
So did Augustus actually order that the whole world be enumerated? No, of course not. He used "kosmos" to mean "the ordered world", ie, the Roman Empire. That is the biblical meaning of the word, as it was used in the time of Peter.
So that's the word Peter used.
Last edited:
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,356
- 2,557
No, it says the land (erets) was flooded, not the world (tebel). "Erets" can mean "some land", "hereabouts", a specific nation, (Erets Israel) or any number of things. But if God meant "world", He would have said "world."
Only our direct ancestors were given immortal souls by God. H. erectus would have been an entirely different species, and yes, they evolved in Africa. The large number of transitionals between H. erectus and other human species makes it clear that the story is pretty complex.
But as your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise admits, the hominid transition is among the "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." And Dr. Wise actually knows the evidence.
Why not just accept it God's way?
- Sep 10, 2021
- 5,498
- 4,774
Rome ruled virtually the whole habitable world at that time, so the use here still supports my argument, as do about 150 other uses in New Testament verses. To say that Caesar missed a few tribesmen somewhere and therefore the whole habitable world is not being referred to is getting too knit picky IMO. The term means the whole world, not just a small town where Noah lived.
- Sep 10, 2021
- 5,498
- 4,774
Barbarian, let me ask you about this passage again. Do you think Peter was referring to a local judgment at the end of this passage in verse 7, or a global one?
3 For scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 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 creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,356
- 2,557
No, and they knew that they didn't. They were aware of Persia, Arabia, The Teutonic tribes, and many other nations not under their control.
They knew about China. C'mon. "Kosmos" meant something quite different to a Roman in the days of Peter.
Similar threads
