Creationism is the claim. What is the evidence?

Wow, it's amazing how you judge me even though you don't know a thing about me.

satt_focusable wrote:

Wilso..
Science is transient. Would you be a transitory existence?

Correction: some of science is transient. We still rely on many of the findings of the ancient greeks, phonecians, etc. especially in physics. Note the invention of finding the world's circumference by studying shadows at two points on the earth.

Science changes when it was incorrect in the first place or is influenced by somthing other than science (ex: biblical account that the world is flat, that zeus produced thunder, etc.)

Investor4life wrote:

umm, that's why this is called a discussion chat - Don't be offended because people have a belief in a higher power or even don't believe- either way everyone is entitled to their opinion/view. Just like you wouldn't like to be bashed or told that you are completely irrational and deluded for stating your opinions. By the way, religion is man-made, there's a big difference between a religious fanatic and a spiritual person.

You are free to believe in a magical sexist homopobe in the sky, who made his son into a human sacrifice to save us all from his own self-decreed law. You're well withen your rights. But that doesn't make your belief a rational one, or your reasons anything more than the deluded superstitions they are.

In any case, objectively speaking, your belief is no more rational than my chosen religion, which is explained comprehensively here. I can only hope you find it withen yourself to see the Truth of my chosen faith, for the IPU is the only path to righteousness and redemption. All praises be to the IPU; the munificent, the mercifull.

By the way, you will burn tortuously in hell forever if you don't pray to MY God. Thats how much he loves you.

Toodles.

Sorry, Mesquite, I was gone for a couple days. It was translated into "days" in english, but the original word meant "periods." Especially since when he started there was no sun, and no earth, a "day" couldn't even be defined in our terms. There is also scripture that talks of god living on a different planet, and subject to differently to time. In other words, the planet could rotate more slowly. Those are three different possibilities. Personally I subscribe to the first.

.5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

[Literally, "and the evening was, and the morning was, the first day."] Day How could the word "day" (Hebrew yowm for both occurrences in this verse) be both the time of light and also evening and morning? First, the evening-plus-morning days are simply called days in the literal week described by the fourth commandment ex2011 so we see them as 24-hour periods. The terms evening and morning relate to light coming out of or after darkness. The day as a cycle of time begins at sundown and continues to the next sundown as we see the dark part of the "day" first here. This is confirmed by le2332. On days of creation being long periods of time, see the note on another page for this verse.

Could a day in this chapter be thousands or millions of years?
Many people today, even theologians, perhaps in an effort to be scholarly and accept the popular theories of origins, consider the first eleven chapters of Genesis as ancient mythology or traditions. In an effort to harmonize evolution and biblical religion, they say that a "day" in Genesis 1 was a long period of time - millions of years. This effort for harmony is called "theistic evolution." Any such attempt to assume the Genesis "day" as not literal, however, pulls a fundamental pin out of the credibility of the Bible causing the whole structure to crash. Obviously Satan takes fiendish pleasure in this. Consider the following reasons to believe the Bible as it reads:
As noted with v5 above, the fourth commandment of the ten God gave at Sinai refers to creation week assuming literal days ex2008.
If the Genesis 1 day were a million years, the plants created on day three would all die during the 500,000 years of darkness before the next daytime. The idea doesn't fit well into evolution either.
Over the years, evolutionists have lengthened their opinion of the time since life began in order to allow for evolutionary changes so a thousand years or a million are still too short. And now it may clearly be shown that some of the molecular life form structures could not have evolved since their component parts do not exist independently.
Evolution assumes a beginning, with lightning causing mutations or combining of elements to get the first simple life form going, but there is simply no explanation of where the sea and the lightning came from. Only God could create from nothing he1103. We cannot prove that but have evidence of His working in our naturally evil hearts. We may trust His word, too.
Peter wrote of scoffers who feel that the world hasn't changed and are "willingly ignorant" of the flood of Genesis 2pe0303ff. He wrote after the time of Christ, so if we doubt him, we doubt everything! In fact his warning is about this very thing. In verse 8 of the same chapter, Peter said that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years. This doesn't help because he also says that a thousand years is as a day. It's not a mathematical formula.
l believe that the God who sent Jesus and the Jesus who, with the Holy Spirit draws us to the divine way of peace and love, are also well able to preserve the truth of the Scriptures.
What is a "day"? Meaning of the Hebrew yom. (The word should be written with an accent mark: yôm. This commentary omits the accents since many accented letters for Hebrew transliterations are not in the common character set.)
The word, yom, may mean a literal 24-hour day or a long period of time or a future time. However, without qualifying terms or forms as in Genesis 1, yom always means a literal day.
When yom is modified by an ordinal number as in 1:5 (see left column) it is literal with the exceptions of ho0602, zc1407, and am0404.
Lexicographers (Dictionary writers) always follow the literal-day translation.
The seven-day work-and-rest pattern is confirmed twice in Exodus. Manna was provided and gathered for six literal days but neither occurred on the seventh literal day. This sequence of work and rest for both God and the people was clearly modeled after the creation week. Then in the ten commandments, as already noted, the Sabbath was confirmed by the same six-plus-one literal day pattern ex2008.
This leaves us with the conclusion that the earth was formed in six literal days followed by one literal day set apart for rest.

God be with you.....

I am talking about scientific view on human position.

And one can ask, "what does the principle of lever imply for the meaning of human existence?"

Portal Star wrote:

satt_focusable wrote:

Wilso..
Science is transient. Would you be a transitory existence?

Correction: some of science is transient. We still rely on many of the findings of the ancient greeks, phonecians, etc. especially in physics. Note the invention of finding the world's circumference by studying shadows at two points on the earth.

Science changes when it was incorrect in the first place or is influenced by somthing other than science (ex: biblical account that the world is flat, that zeus produced thunder, etc.)

Actually there is still a Flat World Society!

SCoates wrote:

Sorry, Mesquite, I was gone for a couple days. It was translated into "days" in english, but the original word meant "periods." Especially since when he started there was no sun, and no earth, a "day" couldn't even be defined in our terms. There is also scripture that talks of god living on a different planet, and subject to differently to time. In other words, the planet could rotate more slowly. Those are three different possibilities. Personally I subscribe to the first.

It seems clear to me that the verse was speaking of days as we know them, especially in the light of using the seventh day as the sabath.

Quote:

.5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

[Literally, "and the evening was, and the morning was, the first day."] Day How could the word "day" (Hebrew yowm for both occurrences in this verse) be both the time of light and also evening and morning? First, the evening-plus-morning days are simply called days in the literal week described by the fourth commandment ex2011 so we see them as 24-hour periods. The terms evening and morning relate to light coming out of or after darkness. The day as a cycle of time begins at sundown and continues to the next sundown as we see the dark part of the "day" first here. This is confirmed by le2332. On days of creation being long periods of time, see the note on another page for this verse.

Source
Here is one argument against different periods of time written by a believer. My point is that literal interpretations are full of problems, and any attempt at alternate explanations is just more fiction.

Quote:

Could a day in this chapter be thousands or millions of years?
Many people today, even theologians, perhaps in an effort to be scholarly and accept the popular theories of origins, consider the first eleven chapters of Genesis as ancient mythology or traditions. In an effort to harmonize evolution and biblical religion, they say that a "day" in Genesis 1 was a long period of time - millions of years. This effort for harmony is called "theistic evolution." Any such attempt to assume the Genesis "day" as not literal, however, pulls a fundamental pin out of the credibility of the Bible causing the whole structure to crash. Obviously Satan takes fiendish pleasure in this. Consider the following reasons to believe the Bible as it reads:
As noted with v5 above, the fourth commandment of the ten God gave at Sinai refers to creation week assuming literal days ex2008.
If the Genesis 1 day were a million years, the plants created on day three would all die during the 500,000 years of darkness before the next daytime. The idea doesn't fit well into evolution either.
Over the years, evolutionists have lengthened their opinion of the time since life began in order to allow for evolutionary changes so a thousand years or a million are still too short. And now it may clearly be shown that some of the molecular life form structures could not have evolved since their component parts do not exist independently.
Evolution assumes a beginning, with lightning causing mutations or combining of elements to get the first simple life form going, but there is simply no explanation of where the sea and the lightning came from. Only God could create from nothing he1103. We cannot prove that but have evidence of His working in our naturally evil hearts. We may trust His word, too.
Peter wrote of scoffers who feel that the world hasn't changed and are "willingly ignorant" of the flood of Genesis 2pe0303ff. He wrote after the time of Christ, so if we doubt him, we doubt everything! In fact his warning is about this very thing. In verse 8 of the same chapter, Peter said that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years. This doesn't help because he also says that a thousand years is as a day. It's not a mathematical formula.
l believe that the God who sent Jesus and the Jesus who, with the Holy Spirit draws us to the divine way of peace and love, are also well able to preserve the truth of the Scriptures.
What is a "day"? Meaning of the Hebrew yom. (The word should be written with an accent mark: yôm. This commentary omits the accents since many accented letters for Hebrew transliterations are not in the common character set.)
The word, yom, may mean a literal 24-hour day or a long period of time or a future time. However, without qualifying terms or forms as in Genesis 1, yom always means a literal day.
When yom is modified by an ordinal number as in 1:5 (see left column) it is literal with the exceptions of ho0602, zc1407, and am0404.
Lexicographers (Dictionary writers) always follow the literal-day translation.
The seven-day work-and-rest pattern is confirmed twice in Exodus. Manna was provided and gathered for six literal days but neither occurred on the seventh literal day. This sequence of work and rest for both God and the people was clearly modeled after the creation week. Then in the ten commandments, as already noted, the Sabbath was confirmed by the same six-plus-one literal day pattern ex2008.
This leaves us with the conclusion that the earth was formed in six literal days followed by one literal day set apart for rest.

Source

Any rational person watching insects fly can understand that on the day that the first bat ever snagged the first insect using echo-location, the echo-location had to work perfectly, and that such a capability could not possibly evolve.

Consider what life must have been like for the evolutionists' "proto-bat", attempting to develop echo-location over a multi-thousand- generation span:

This creature's life would almost certainly have been one continual, bad hallucination, from dawn to dusk and then back again, from the day he was born to the day he died.

Picture being stoned out of your mind on every hallucinatory drug at the same time, and then trying to watch and make sense of the very worst television broadcast you've ever seen, you know, the sort of thing you see for about 20 seconds before the "Technical Difficulties" screen comes up. That's all that that poor little evolving bat ever knew of our world.

And yet, the brilliant Ediacara crew, along with their brilliant FAQ system, would have you believe that this fatally afflicted little creature prospered and thrived and survived for thousands of generations, in such a state.

Whenever you see or hear somebody expounding upon evolution, or trying to indoctrinate kids in the "fact" of evolution, think about this poor little dinged-out bat flying around in circles, flying into walls, trees, the ground, his mind trashed either because he met up with Raoul Jose-Domingo Tokovar and they toked down a box of Columbian spliffs, or (effectively the same thing) because he was trying to EVOLVE echo-location, and was only 80% there...

Let's call this little bat Splifford. Some years ago, somebody rescued a little bear from a forest fire, and that little bear became a metaphor for the national effort to preserve our forests from careless acts and the tragedy of large-scale fires.

Similarly, Splifford should become a symbol of the national will to save American culture, American society, and the youth of America from the mind-destroying evil of corrupt ideological doctrines.


Splifford the bat says: Always remember

: A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist. Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological doctrines.