Post Number: 744
|Posted on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 1:34 pm: || |
Enjoy your research! The things you mentioned, about thorns and thistles, are not from Ellen, they are in the Bible. I have never been SDA, and the only EGW I have read is the Great Controversy, and that only for research purposes. The fact I am a young earth creationist has nothing to do with the Sabbath, I have never been a sabbatarian, it is because that is what the Bible teaches and that is what the facts of science support.
The reason some Christians try to force long ages into the Bible is not because of serious Biblical exegesis, it is because they think that science has proved the earth is billions of years old, so rather than question these presuppositions they question the Bible instead.
Scientific fact does not support billions of years. Check out some of the sites - the ones I gave you are not SDA :-)
Post Number: 3054
|Posted on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 2:51 pm: || |
Doc; I agree!
Post Number: 308
|Posted on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 6:08 pm: || |
I have been in such a quandary about scientists data re the age of things. I can be OK with an old earth but insist on a young Adam and Eve. Just because organic matter is found inside very old inorganic matter doesn't necessarily make it the same. Many, probably most scientists think so but I thinks it's their 'worldview' not hard science. According to Dr. Gerald Schroeder that fits with our science data with CBR aging which has its confines in inorganic material as I understand it.
Back in the 70's a physicist named Robert Gentry discovered very tiny 'halos' in various layers of aged rock (dated by CBR), all layers being quite different in age - some kind sediment thing. The halos all had micro-second half-life in these different aged layers of rock. IMO it doesn't take much imagination to see how this might have played out. At the very first, it's absurd IMO, that minutely timed material could be 'imbedded' in differently aged layers of rock as a visible 'snapshot'. I'm just sayin...... unless, of course an author of incredible, infinite power might have give man a little 'finger print'.
Post Number: 179
|Posted on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 8:36 pm: || |
Thank you everyone. Those later posts helped. What I've gottten out of this discussion is that Young Earth is an exceptable Christian, Evangelical position. Not just Adventists. And it's not an Adventist teaching I need to reevaluate. Talking together would have made this so much easier.
Adrian: I checked out one of the sites on hair. It didn't get into what I wanted to know. I'll check others. THx
Post Number: 745
|Posted on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 2:07 pm: || |
I was fascinated by Robert Gentry's work on polonium haloes in basement rock. It is very strong evidence for an instant creation not very long ago. I later came across some indication that he may be SDA, but hey, that does not negate his scientific research, if it was properly conducted.
Am I prejudiced? :-)
The links I sent were only meant to give you access to the playlists these ministries have put out. Maybe I was lazy, huh?
If you want info on anything specific, let me know and I will try to find it, OK?
Bendith Duw arnoch chwi! (That's Welsh). Isten áldjon (Hungarian). OK, so I am a language freak too!
Post Number: 8
|Posted on Thursday, April 18, 2013 - 3:28 am: || |
Thank you for all the information. I am working my way through it and will follow up on the reading. I'm grappling with the idea that God's word is truth and should be taken in its entirety so we can't just pick and choose what we believe. Therefore, if I believe in Jesus as my Saviour I also have to believe in the Old Testament as it contains the history and the prophecies which were given by God - who is also Jesus- pointing to his life and sacrifice. I am having a lot of trouble with various interpretations, especially with prophecy and symbolism, such as in Daniel. I am also having a lot of trouble giving up my former learning about a billions of years old earth (pride). I will pray for guidance and humility.
Post Number: 311
|Posted on Thursday, April 18, 2013 - 3:06 pm: || |
God bless, in your venture. I found that I didn't have to abandon truly scientific knowledge or theory altogether, but was able to use some as tools to help me. Science vs. pseudo-science. Science doesn't 'say' things, scientists do. Scientific fact discriminated from scientific theory and worldview etc.
What little critical thinking skill I have was taxed to my limits and I considered -
"Can you find out the deep things of God?
Can you find out the limit of the Almighty?" Job 11.7 ESV
I also used my memory of my favorite sci-fi stuff, esp. Star Trek and marveled at how people would 'wow' over those themes and then be so willing to discredit Biblical record that such a powerful being could exist so as to be outside our physical laws.
Post Number: 943
|Posted on Saturday, April 20, 2013 - 5:22 am: || |
I've studied extensively and am now a young earth creationist. I whole-heartedly recommend Answers in Genesis for great information. Ken Ham is their best speaker. His DVD's are profound - funny, too.
Some of their DVD's are very technical, good, but technical. Ken Ham's are a great choice for someone seeking biblical truth.
Post Number: 746
|Posted on Saturday, April 20, 2013 - 8:29 am: || |
Yes, that is a good site.
Post Number: 3059
|Posted on Saturday, April 20, 2013 - 10:32 am: || |
The trouble is, most people don't believe in God. A lot of them think there might be a God, so they try to make sure their behavior isn't too bad, so that if there is, then they might get into Heaven. (It never occurs to them that their behavior doesn't even factor into the equation, but whether or not they believe on Jesus as their Atonement.)
So most scientists - if they reflect the general population - don't believe in God either. For them, it's unscientific to start their theories with a "myth," so they have to come up with how creation might have come about by accident. They won't believe anything they cannot put into a test tube.
Post Number: 1064
|Posted on Saturday, April 20, 2013 - 11:54 am: || |
Many people do not believe "in" GOD, this is true~
Many people do not "Believe" GOD and what HE says in Scripture!
People do not take HIM at HIS Word!
Post Number: 508
|Posted on Tuesday, April 23, 2013 - 11:21 am: || |
Pretty good article on Talk Orgin that refutes the "Palonium Haloe" hypothesis and gives a good detail why. It's a long read but worth it if you are interested. Here is the link
Post Number: 1066
|Posted on Tuesday, April 23, 2013 - 11:52 am: || |
Thank-you for this link~
Post Number: 9
|Posted on Tuesday, April 23, 2013 - 2:14 pm: || |
I have been reading extensively, especially in Christian apologetics and I see how much of what is presented as scientific "fact" in the media and some circles of science is not as factual as it claims to be. It is certainly interesting to have to reconsider everything that has been indoctrinated into me by secular society.
Today I came across an article about European DNA which stated:
"But, from the Middle Neolithic onwards, DNA patterns more closely resembled those of people living in the area today, pointing to a major - and previously unrecognised - population upheaval around 4,000 BC.
Co-author Prof Alan Cooper, from the University of Adelaide in Australia, said: "What is intriguing is that the genetic markers of this first pan-European culture, which was clearly very successful, were then suddenly replaced around 4,500 years ago, and we don't know why.
"Something major happened, and the hunt is now on to find out what that was.""
This is in relation to Near eastern farmer DNA replacing the previous hunter gather DNA
Maybe their "hunt" should start in the Bible!
I am not actually sure about the timing of the great flood and doubt that even if the timing fits secular science would dare to put it forward as an explanation for this "sudden" change?
The world is a very different place when viewed through a biblical lens. It is also kind of lonely when one doesn't have a church connection and lives among non-believers. I am working on finding a local Christian community but meanwhile it is nice to have you good folk to talk to.
Post Number: 1068
|Posted on Tuesday, April 23, 2013 - 3:35 pm: || |
Thank-you for your information link~
Post Number: 691
|Posted on Tuesday, April 23, 2013 - 10:39 pm: || |
I agree with Joyfulheart, Ken Ham is good. He also has great DVD's and books for kids. They have some very interesting theories about how dinosaurs fit on the ark and they put forth the idea that dinosaurs were all herbivores- even the ones with sharp teeth! They show other herbivores on the planet who have extremely sharp teeth and show why and what they use them for. Anyway, some interesting hypotheses- and, as was stated, they are entertaining too!
Post Number: 9987
|Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - 12:56 pm: || |
Seeing as when God created the earth, the trees, ground, mountains and animals, humans, how old would the earth have tested out, at that time??
I have often wondered about this, but have no answer.
Post Number: 747
|Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - 1:48 pm: || |
Well, I read the article supposedly "refuting" the polonium haloes. I must say I was not convinced. Where do I start? The author complains that Gentry has "presuppositions", and then just assumes his own presuppositions so strongly, as if they are irrefutable, like, science has proven that the earth is billions of year old by radiometric dating. Basically, you just don't have to believe it. There are so many cases of rocks formed in historical times which have radiometric ages of billions of years, that this "assumption" genuinely has been totally "refuted". I suggest you accept the Bible as historically accurate, and you will fare much better.
Post Number: 510
|Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 7:02 am: || |
If God created the earth to appear older than 6,0000-10,0000 years old that would be deceptive. Why would god create man with intelligence and the ability to learn and understand such things and create things to appear older than they are? I don't see the bible as being the answer to how, just that it is.
What may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:19,20).
I trust science in what we are learning about this Universe around us, God gave us the minds, Science also discovers cures and does a wealth of good things for mankind. I would suggest that God gave us this intelligence to do such. If the things made are clearly seen as evidence and we know God is not a liar then we can't suppose the earth is young just because we lack understanding of what really took place in the beginning. The purpose of the bible is to lead to a relationship with Jesus not to understand how the Universe came to be. Yes God created the Universe and Us. I think believers would do much better to not bother with the Hows of it and focus on the relationship. it's all about Faith anyway isn't it? I don't think Science disproves God, I think it only confirms that it's a wondrous mystery. If one has to look at rocks to find god then perhaps they don't realize they simply have to believe with their heart and confess with their mouth and God will make himself known to them. Science is not about finding god and yes those who do not believe God will not find him because they are looking in the wrong place, Jesus is the rock, he's not in them LOL
Post Number: 1027
|Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 12:12 pm: || |
"Jesus is the rock, he's not in them LOL "
awesome statement !!!
Post Number: 749
|Posted on Tuesday, April 30, 2013 - 1:05 pm: || |
Hello again! I agree that finding God through Jesus and knowing him is the main point, no problem with that.
You wrote, "If God created the earth to appear older than 6,0000-10,0000 years old that would be deceptive." I guess you mean 6,000-10,000.
Sure, if he did, it would be, but I do not see that he did. What is the evidence? Where is the proof that the world is more that 10,000 years old? I have been researching this for 30 years and I have not found any, only a bunch of theories and opinions based on speculative interpretations of human reasoning originating in nothing in particular. Radiometric dating is clearly unreliable, so what else is there besides circular reasoning? For instance, every planet in the solar system has some feature which is incompatible with long ages.
What I meant about the article on polonium haloes egyébként (by the way) is that the main thrust of the argument seemed to be:
Genty's theory is in conflict with the theories that are generally accepted today, therefore, it must be wrong.
So, why is that authoritative, convincing, or, what is most important, true?
The majority have been wrong before.
I love this subject, by the way :-) And I only want to see God glorified!
Post Number: 22
|Posted on Sunday, June 02, 2013 - 8:18 pm: || |
Hi everyone, I thought I would pop back in and let you know that I have spent the last few weeks almost obsessively researching Creationist Vs Evolutionist arguments and I now firmly believe that Evolution is WRONG! I am actually quite upset at the extent of the deception and the effect it is having upon the (mostly) western world's ability to accept our Saviour's message.
Having found many many Christian scientists on creation.com who can make compelling arguments for a literal 6 day Creation I feel better equipped to raise my objections whenever evolution is causally mentioned as the explanation for anything.
Natural selection and adaptation yes, evolution from nothing absolutely not.
Now I know the origin of the assumptions scientists in the early 20th century made to calculate the ages of the universe and fossil deposits is false, the millions of years argument falls down like a house of cards.
Praise the Lord for guiding me to read what I need to know.
Post Number: 14465
|Posted on Monday, June 03, 2013 - 3:17 pm: || |
I just have to mention that it seems to me, in the big picture, that there's something significant in the fact that Darwin's Origin of the Species was first published in 1859.
Think about the religious scene in North American during that time. Mormonism had come into existence in the 1830's, and Joseph Smith was murdered in 1844. EGW had her first vision late in 1844, and during the 1850's Adventism began coalescing and finally incorporated in 1863. The Jehovah's Witnesses came into being in the 1870's.
It seems significant to me that these so-called "Christian cults" emerged with their deceptive and attractive counterfeit gospels, and they are primed to deceive ungrounded Christians. At the same time the movement that turned out to have the most devastating effect on Scriptural authority, evolution, emerged during the same time.
The spiritual deception spawned during the mid-19th century is unbelievable in its universal effect. The physicalism of Adventism and Jehovah's Witnesses (man is body without "spirit) is actually an evolutionary worldview. The "God is as man once was" paradigm of Mormonism is also evolutionary.
Removing Intelligent Design from the scientific view of life has completely changed the underlying worldview of the scientific community.
Just thought it was interesting...
Post Number: 458
|Posted on Monday, June 03, 2013 - 9:00 pm: || |
My families personal family doctor, Dr. David Comings, MD who was President of the neurological society for many years and editor of their publication and ran the Tourette Syndrome Clinic at the City of Hope Medical Center in Duarte, California recently wrote a book called, "Did Man Create God,?". Very interesting book. I ordered mine from Amazon. No matter how much i don't agree with alot of it the book is interesting and the knowledge of how others think and come to the beliefs they have is always good. And, he's by far the best doctor andw wonderful doctor we could have ever found. Maybe you all might want to read it.
Post Number: 753
|Posted on Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - 12:55 pm: || |
Good points Colleen!
In addition to that there is also Christian Science, Christadelphianism and (dare I bring it up?) the pretribulation rapture, which was never taught throughout church history before the 1840s.
It is also interesting that Wallace, who came up with evolution by natural selection around the same time as Darwin but never seemed to get much credit for it, was heavily in to the occult practices of primitive tribes. I am afraid I have forgotten the references for this, but apparently, Wallance came up with his theory of evolution while he was in a fever of possibly malaria, while spending time with a primitive tribe (Papua New Guinea?), and he got the whole picture while dreaming in this feverish state. Of course, evolution was not a new theory in the 19th century, the ancient Greeks postulated it, as do, of course, Hinduism and Buddhism. So, do they get it from God?
By the way, Cazperth, I agree :-) Well done,
Post Number: 3107
|Posted on Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - 1:45 pm: || |
On his website, Dr. Comings has a very nice, sweet face, but for me, I think that reading a book by an atheist (he admits that he doesn't believe in God), might be similer to reading a book such as "The Great Controversy" by a false prophet. His "rebuttal of creationism and intelligent design" as one reviewer puts it, isn't something I'd like to read anymore than I'd like to read how someone became a Mormon.