14 Dec 11
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillI never said that God made a chaotic mess. I agree with Isaiah were heWhy toot your horn for Dr. Ross, who gives support to the view of the atheists?
Guilt by association is a weak argument.
I could make a similar claim for you. If you agree that the first thing God made was a chaotic mess then you support ancient Greek and Roman cosmogony. The ancients going back to the poetry of 900 B.C. taught the ancient Greeks in their belief that a chaotic mess was the first thing in existence ?
says that God did not create a waste place when he created the earth,
but created it to be inhabited. (Isaiah 45:18)
I only pointed out that Genesis 1:2 was describing how the earth looked
at one point while God was making and preparing it for the living creatures
that were to inhabit it. So please don't jump to conclusions. I know you
are better than that. We are not atheists so we should be able to discuss
this without hard feelings and come to an agreement so we support each
other against the views of the atheists, who I believe are on Satan's side,
regardless of what they tell us. They are spreading Satan's lies IMO.
P.S. Sometimes it is possible for a person to get too much of the wrong
kind of education. They call them "educated fools" I think.
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by jaywillI know very little about D. Hovind so how could I be tooting my horn for him.
RJHinds,
I'll make you a deal. I won't toot horn for Dr. Ross if you won't toot horn for Ken Hovind.
Poor Ken Hovind is probably still in jail for instructing his employees on tax evasion. Frankly, I sometimes wonder if he worships political conservatism more than God, at times.
I'll stop tooting for Ross if you stop tooting for the felone Hovind.
Deal ?
It is your fault I even stumbled across his videos. But I do seem to agree
with the two men he had on his videos, but I really don't know everything
they believe either. I only know that I don't believe in an earth that has
been inhabited for billions or millions of years. I believe in one that is
only a few thousand years old and there is scientific laws and evidence that
appear to limit the earth to thousands of years of age. It is okay if you
wish to disagree, but I would rather that you did not support these false
theories of the atheists, for it makes them think they are right when we
know they are not.
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by 667joeThe cause has a cause... the cause is caused by the cause is caused by the cause is caused by the cause etc etc.
It always comes down to this: If everything must have a cause, what caused the cause? If the cause does not need a cause, why should anything else require a cause?
14 Dec 11
7 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
I never said that God made a chaotic mess. I agree with Isaiah were he
says that God did not create a waste place when he created the earth,
but created it to be inhabited. (Isaiah 45:18)
I only pointed out that Genesis 1:2 was describing how the earth looked
at one point while God was making and preparing it for the living creatures
that were to inh to get too much of the wrong
kind of education. They call them "educated fools" I think.
We are not atheists so we should be able to discuss
this without hard feelings and come to an agreement so we support each
other against the views of the atheists, who I believe are on Satan's side,
regardless of what they tell us. They are spreading Satan's lies IMO.
I agree that two Christian brothers should be able to fellowship such a matter. There is no need for one to tell the other to stick his head up his buttocks or some such other street talk. (In the conversation about the Shroud)
But I am not sure what you are saying is yielding support to atheists.
I suppose you are telling me that any Christian who says an Old Earth view of the universe's age is the partner of an atheist. I have to reject that kind of logic.
If an atheist says 2 + 2 = 4 and a Christian says 2 + 2 = 4 that does not make the Christian a supporter of the Atheist's denial of God's existence.
if an atheist says the universe is very old and a Christian astronomer says the universe is very old that simply does not make the Christian an assistant to Atheistic ideas about there being no God.
All truth is God's truth.
Now, if you want to see Hovind and Ross debate each other, you can find those videos if you want. But to hear Ken Hovind and two of his sympathizers sit around and poo poo Hugh Ross is not the most balanced treatment of their differences.
Now I find Ken Hovind interesting and very smart and eloquent. He certainly can stand up against some critics with at least some kind of reply. What I find useful in his talks, I take.
Same is true with Hugh Ross. What I find useful I think about. I think you shouldn't dismiss him just on the say so of two opponents from a rival organization having a chat. Reasons To Believe is often criticized by Answers in Genesis.
What is it that I believe that is "atheist friendly" ? Is it that there could be living creatures on earth before Adam was created ? Is that it ?
14 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsthere is scientific laws and evidence that
I know very little about D. Hovind so how could I be tooting my horn for him.
It is your fault I even stumbled across his videos. But I do seem to agree
with the two men he had on his videos, but I really don't know everything
they believe either. I only know that I don't believe in an earth that has
been inhabited for billions or millions of years. I ...[text shortened]...
theories of the atheists, for it makes them think they are right when we
know they are not.
appear to limit the earth to thousands of years of age.
Really? What are they?
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsPlease exemplify these laws of physics that you say limit the earth to a mere few thousand years old, with examples.
Laws of physics, such as the Inverse Square Law, laws dealing with magnetism, movement, force and pressure to name a few.
I can't believe you wrote that. Or was that a non-humorous joke? 😲
-m.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritFor your information I know a little about Physics. I still have the text
our friend, rjhinds doesn't know anything about those laws. he's just repeating some half-baked drivel he heard from one of the creationist web sites.
books I used in college. These books are titled, "Physics For Students
of Science and Engineering, Part I and Part II" by Robert Resnick and
David Halliday.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThat's lovely Ron, but the question posted to you was -
For your information I know a little about Physics. I still have the text
books I used in college. These books are titled, "Physics For Students
of Science and Engineering, Part I and Part II" by Robert Resnick and
David Halliday.
'in what ways do these appear to limit the age of the earth to thousands of years?'
Let's not skimp on the details and in your own words as well please, not some youtube video or link or Dasa-esque cut and paste job.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobThis may be difficult to explain to someone who does not know anything about
That's lovely Ron, but the question posted to you was -
'in what ways do these appear to limit the age of the earth to thousands of years?'
Let's not skimp on the details and in your own words as well please, not some youtube video or link or Dasa-esque cut and paste job.
Physics, so I hope you at least had High School Physics.
The problem in dating the age of the earth is complicated by the different
world views of the creationists and the evolutionists. The creationists
view the universe and the earth as being created fully formed and ready for
life by God and see this as the starting point for dating the earth. The
evolutionists estimate the age of the universe by using the estimated size
of the universe and the known speed of light today. However, from the view
of the creationists the size and age of the universe are indepenent and you
can not estimate one from the other. The evolutionist estimate the earth's
age as 4.5 billion years at present. This is derived partly from the
radioactive parent-daughter element ratios of the base rocks of the earth's
crust which may take millions or billions of years to form under present
day conditions. But from the creationist point of view man was fully
formed as an adult upon creation and so also the earth was fully formed and
ready to support life at creation, which is the beginning and starting
point that must be used in dating anything. So you can not use this as an
accurate estimate of the age of the earth because the fully formed base
rocks were necessary or at least useful for life. This is like Adam trying
to guess the age of the earth by measuring the topsoil in the Garden of
Eden. These things are primary features of creation and can not be used
as valid estimators of age.
Do you understand this?