Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall
Facebook

Notices

Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 01-04-2010, 01:34 AM
pelathais's Avatar
pelathais pelathais is offline
Accepts all friends requests


 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,609
Re: Creation and Time by Hugh Ross

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyWayne View Post
Wasn't there at least 8 or 9 points brought up in the Chick comic?
LOL. I'm just starting it off.

Can anyone give a single proof that the earth is 6,000 years old? There's gotta be something laying around this old (or young) world that would substantiate such an interpretation.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-04-2010, 02:05 AM
pelathais's Avatar
pelathais pelathais is offline
Accepts all friends requests


 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,609
Re: Creation and Time by Hugh Ross

The problem here, as I see it - is that the YEC crowd are demanding that we ignore a huge amount of conflicting data just to accept their view. They offer nothing to support their position.

Someone might say "Well, it's the same thing with the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the virgin birth!"

But it is not the same thing at all. As I said, we have literally mountains of data to show the age of the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old. This forces us to re-examine the claims of the YEC advocate.

There is nothing however, in our natural world that would say a creative force, like the God of the Bible, could not and did not raise someone from the dead.

"Oh!" Timmy would say... "What about all of the people who die in the world today and fail to get up three days later? Isn't that proof from the natural world that people can't be raised from the dead?"

No. It's proof that resurrection from the dead is not a natural process. It says nothing about the supernatural.

"But then... why couldn't God have just created the world 6,000 years ago and made it look like it was an old earth? A "supernatural" miracle that defies all the laws of nature as well?"

Because then His imposition of false data into the geological and astronomical record would be a deception. Remember, on this question we have data from the natural world and we must engage and understand that information. We can actually see that the earth is more than 6,000 years old:

and

We're not like Thomas and the other apostles who were "blessed" because they did see and believe in the resurrection. We have nothing from the natural world at all that even speaks to the question of the resurrection of Christ.

When Jesus rose from the dead he bore the physical wounds - evidence - of His death and suffering. This is what in part, persuded Thomas to believe. Thomas had evidence from the natural world - the man Jesus Christ Himself - standing there as evidence. We are called upon to believe or reject this account based solely upon the evidence of reason and the Spirit of God.

The earth too, bears physical "wounds." Wounds which give evidence of a long age - much greater than 6,000 years. Just as Jesus challenged "doubting" Thomas to push his fingers into the wounds, we can actually touch the physical scars of the earth.

Accepting the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence for an old earth does not invalidate nor even challenge the miraculous works of God that are described in the Bible. They really aren't even part of the same discussion, though some folks like Ken Ham insist they are.

He doesn't even seem to notice that he has volumes of books and writings and an entire staff devoted to arguing against the natural history of the earth; yet not one soul tasked to address the scientific evidence against the resurrection. And why is that? It is because there is no scientific evidence that has ever been presented against the claims of the apostles.

There has been a long and often loud debate on the philosophical and theological aspects of the resurrection - but nothing scientific can be made against the claim. The age of the earth, on the other hand is an entirely different issue.

Last edited by pelathais; 01-04-2010 at 02:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-04-2010, 10:00 AM
Nitehawk013 Nitehawk013 is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,149
Re: Creation and Time by Hugh Ross

So in other words...you believe the parts of the bible you believe and think the others are meaningless or just symbollic? Therefore you can conclude that in your opinion Genesis is a bunch of lies, but you like the Jesus part so you're cool with that?

YOu claim YEC is foolishness because of your studies. I and a whole lot of others say the same thing about OEC. One of us has a Bible that says God did it in 6 days. I think I will stick with the Bible.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-04-2010, 10:14 AM
jfrog's Avatar
jfrog jfrog is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 9,001
Re: Creation and Time by Hugh Ross

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitehawk013 View Post
So in other words...you believe the parts of the bible you believe and think the others are meaningless or just symbollic? Therefore you can conclude that in your opinion Genesis is a bunch of lies, but you like the Jesus part so you're cool with that?

YOu claim YEC is foolishness because of your studies. I and a whole lot of others say the same thing about OEC. One of us has a Bible that says God did it in 6 days. I think I will stick with the Bible.
lol, you don't get it do you? If you succeed in trying to make the argument be the bible against science then you will destroy Christianity.

It may all be good with you, but somewhere down the line of your kids or grandkids or great grandkids, they are going to look back and see all the foolishness your religion brought. The beginning of the end of Christianity... (if you succeed that is)

Last edited by jfrog; 01-04-2010 at 10:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-04-2010, 10:22 AM
jfrog's Avatar
jfrog jfrog is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 9,001
Re: Creation and Time by Hugh Ross

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother David View Post
The problem here, as I see it - is that the YEC crowd are demanding that we ignore a huge amount of conflicting data just to accept their view. They offer nothing to support their position.

Someone might say "Well, it's the same thing with the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the virgin birth!"

But it is not the same thing at all. As I said, we have literally mountains of data to show the age of the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old. This forces us to re-examine the claims of the YEC advocate.

There is nothing however, in our natural world that would say a creative force, like the God of the Bible, could not and did not raise someone from the dead.

"Oh!" Timmy would say... "What about all of the people who die in the world today and fail to get up three days later? Isn't that proof from the natural world that people can't be raised from the dead?"

No. It's proof that resurrection from the dead is not a natural process. It says nothing about the supernatural.

"But then... why couldn't God have just created the world 6,000 years ago and made it look like it was an old earth? A "supernatural" miracle that defies all the laws of nature as well?"

...
I just realized something funny about the bolded part pel. If God made this earth appear old. I'm not convinced that he couldn't have done this but I don't think he would have. But if he had made the earth appear old, then it seems to me that is actually giving credit to the scientists that say the earth is old. In effect that argument that God made the earth look old says that everything the old earthers are doing is correct and everything really does point back to an old earth. In effect the argument is saying, if the earth was actually that old then all the old earthers would be exactly right!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-04-2010, 10:32 AM
Nitehawk013 Nitehawk013 is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,149
Re: Creation and Time by Hugh Ross

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog View Post
lol, you don't get it do you? If you succeed in trying to make the argument be the bible against science then you will destroy Christianity.

It may all be good with you, but somewhere down the line of your kids or grandkids or great grandkids, they are going to look back and see all the foolishness your religion brought. The beginning of the end of Christianity... (if you succeed that is)
That is only true if you make the issue the Bible vs all science.

The issue is Scripture vs junk science and data manipulated by atheists and agnostics looking for "proof" that there is no Creator.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-04-2010, 10:34 AM
Timmy's Avatar
Timmy Timmy is offline
Don't ask.


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 24,212
Re: Creation and Time by Hugh Ross

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitehawk013 View Post
That is only true if you make the issue the Bible vs all science.

The issue is Scripture vs junk science and data manipulated by atheists and agnostics looking for "proof" that there is no Creator.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty

More New Stuff in Timmy Talk!
My Countdown Counting down to: Rapture. Again.
Why am I not surprised?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-04-2010, 10:35 AM
jfrog's Avatar
jfrog jfrog is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 9,001
Re: Creation and Time by Hugh Ross

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitehawk013 View Post
That is only true if you make the issue the Bible vs all science.

The issue is Scripture vs junk science and data manipulated by atheists and agnostics looking for "proof" that there is no Creator.
lol, and somehow you imagine YEC isn't junk? Is that because it's conclusion meshes with your beliefs or because its scientific claims mesh with reality?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-04-2010, 10:42 AM
RandyWayne RandyWayne is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 16,746
Re: Creation and Time by Hugh Ross

Still waiting to hear the explanation for all those huge meteoric impact craters found around the globe and when they would have occurred in recorded human history.

Of course I ask this on every thread where this subject is brought up.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-04-2010, 10:46 AM
jfrog's Avatar
jfrog jfrog is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 9,001
Re: Creation and Time by Hugh Ross

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyWayne View Post
Still waiting to hear the explanation for all those huge meteoric impact craters found around the globe and when they would have occurred in recorded human history.

Of course I ask this on every thread where this subject is brought up.
Probably on day 2 of the creation
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anybody ever heard of Ross Drysdale stmatthew Fellowship Hall 103 09-23-2015 10:56 AM
Creation kristian's_mom Fellowship Hall 3 10-02-2009 08:43 AM
Creation videos Margies3 Fellowship Hall 10 06-19-2009 07:31 AM
The Time Of Adam's Creation ? Scott Hutchinson Fellowship Hall 3 10-01-2007 04:17 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.