Jump to content

SovereignGraceSingles

Welcome to SovereignGraceSingles.com. Where Reformed Faith and Romance Come Together! We are the only Christian dating website for Christian Singles in the Reformed Faith worldwide. Our focus is to bring together Christian singles of all ages. Reformed single Christian men and women who wish to meet other Reformed Christian singles for spiritually, like-minded, loving relationships.
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” - Genesis 2:18
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

Meet Like Minded Believers Can two walk together except they be agreed? - Amos 3:3
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

SGS offers a "fenced" community: both for private single members and also a public Protestant forums open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene-derived Christian Church.
Join us now
Guest

Poll Question: Creationism, OEC or YEC?

Poll Question: Creationism, OEC or YEC?  

69 members have voted

  1. 1. Poll Question: Creationism, OEC or YEC?

    • OEC
      23
    • YEC
      34
    • Don't Know
      3
    • Don't Care
      1
    • Doesn't Matter
      9


Recommended Posts

Cornelius

 

Yes.

 

1) Milk: All babies drink milk by nature, so lactose tolerance for adults must be a trivial change. "Possibly years ago, some humans developed a mutation in the MCM6 gene that keeps the LCT gene turned on even after breast feeding is stopped." See, this is really a simplifying mutations, degenerative with a benefit. The mechanism that shuts down lactase production after infancy is broken, which probably is slightly harmful to digestion of all foods other than milk (fewer enzymes to breakdown food, more enzymes to breakdown milk). You can't achieve Evolution by deactivating genes.

 

2) Wisdom teeth typically are unused and can lead decay of the jawbone that supports other teeth. How is that beneficial? How does that reflect increased complexity of humans?

 

3) Disease resistance. It's hard to respond to something to nebulous. Maybe an Evolutionist could present his best example of Evolution leading to disease resistance?

 

4) Shrinking brains. How is that beneficial or representative of increased complexity of humans?

 

5) Blue eyes. Blue eyes are more easily damaged by sunlight. Less beneficial, and not more complex.

 

See, Evolutionists can't present even one real example of Evolution in humans. And, their attempt to do so has them pointing out degenerative changes, not Evolution.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William

I used to jokingly say, regarding the fossil record, Darwinian Evolution only proves that animals go extinct.

Share this post


Link to post
Cornelius

Evolutionists try to pass of any inherited change as Evolution, because they don't have any real Evolution to show us. Evolution, the thing Darwin wrote about, is to explain where complexity in life comes from. How, for example, a patch of skin can become an eye.

 

Life originally is incredibly complex, even the life at the bottom of the fossil record (where eyes already exist). The human body creates an enzyme to digest lactose in milk. When a baby ceases breast-feeding, the body shifts gears and starts making enzymes for other foods. If the gear shift gets broken and the body doesn't shift gears, that might help us drink milk as adults (obviously, at the cost of optimal digestion of other foods), but it does absolutely nothing to explain where complexity came from int he first place. You can't build something great by taking away functionality.

 

Evolutionists don't want you to pay any attention to the real reason why adults can drink milk. They just want you to think that their goddess Mother Nature invented a new mechanism so that adults can drink milk.

 

Evolutionists in universities and with billions of our dollars and many years have been unable to demonstrate that Evolution has a working mechanism or that Evolution is actually happening in spite of not knowing by what mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

Lots of new people here. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
AGustOfWind

All of the "evidence" that tells us the earth is old is based on the assumption that the earth is the product of the natural processes we see going on today and ignores the possibility that the earth was created by God. Imagine someone travelling back in time and seeing Adam and Eve just a few days after their creation. If he didn't know God had created them but assumed they had been born just as other people are his estimate of their age would be much too high. Scientists who try to estimate the age of the earth but don't take God into consideration are making the same mistake.

 

 

There is nothing in OUC that contradicts scripture. The six day creation in Genesis 1 is only of the earth. On the fourth day God placed lights in the sky but it doesn't say he created the bodies that are the source of those lights at that time. It is possible that the stars already existed but the condition of the earth's atmosphere kept them from being seen from earth. On the other hand the earth was created is six literal days. That is shown by the fact that each days consisted of an evening and a morning. The belief that the earth is billions of years old clearly contradicts the Bible.

 

 

What we know by science is much less that half of the knowledge of the universe. Since it is the result of human efforts it is likely that a lot of it is wrong. And a lot of so called science is really history. Any attempt to determine what happened in the past is unreliable because there are questions that can't be answered by scientific methods, such as whether or not God intervened in past events. In fact much scientific research today fulfills the prophecy made by Peter:

 

Scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.

(2 Peter 3:3-6 ESV)

 

The seven day creation theory is flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest theophilus
The seven day creation theory is flawed.

You are right. According to the Bible the creation only took six days. :D

 

Why do you think the theory is flawed?

Share this post


Link to post
AGustOfWind

You are right. According to the Bible the creation only took six days. :D

 

Why do you think the theory is flawed?

 

It is somewhat implied that the creation only took 6 literal days. But God is not bound by time or space. Also, he'd probably take much longer on making The Earth.

 

Yeah, I know the "God is not bound by time or space" is a bit overused, but still valid nonetheless.

 

Also, the Hebrew definition of the word "Father" just means direct male ancestor, so for all we know, when the bible refers to the word "Father" it really could be referring to somebody's Great great great great great great great great great grandfather, rather than their biological father. Which could easily stretch out the bible, a lot. So, in a sense, that supports an old Earth. Not to mention various proven scientific facts that support an Old Earth.

 

Might I also debunk the 6 day creationism theory, in one of the accurate translations of the bible, when eve was finally given to Adam, Adam said "At last" as if he had been waiting for her, for a long period of time. As if, he may have spent months, or years even, before having eve be given to him.

Also, Hebrew culture places an emphasis on the importance of names, also, there are tens of thousands of animals and creatures on earth, oh no wait excuse me, millions, perhaps more. And back then, WHO knows how many more were around that are extinct now. I highly doubt Adam could've just taken 2 seconds to name an animal. As such, it may have taken years for him to name them all.

 

That's just a bit of supporting proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest theophilus

 

It is somewhat implied that the creation only took 6 literal days. But God is not bound by time or space. Also, he'd probably take much longer on making The Earth.

But God can't lie. How could he tell us he took six days if he took longer?

 

Also, the Hebrew definition of the word "Father" just means direct male ancestor, so for all we know, when the bible refers to the word "Father" it really could be referring to somebody's Great great great great great great great great great grandfather, rather than their biological father. Which could easily stretch out the bible, a lot. So, in a sense, that supports an old Earth.

Yes, it could stretch out the length of time covered in the Bible, but that wouldn't change the fact that the world was created in only six days. The word "father" is never used in describing the creation.

 

Not to mention various proven scientific facts that support an Old Earth.

What are some of these "proven" facts? Are you aware of the fact that there are scientific facts that show the earth is young? You can find some of them at these sites:

 

https://answersingenesis.org/

 

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/

 

Might I also debunk the 6 day creationism theory, in one of the accurate translations of the bible, when eve was finally given to Adam, Adam said "At last" as if he had been waiting for her, for a long period of time.

Which translation was it and why do you think it is accurate?

 

Also, Hebrew culture places an emphasis on the importance of names, also, there are tens of thousands of animals and creatures on earth, oh no wait excuse me, millions, perhaps more.

.

Actually there were probably fewer kinds then than there are today. God created a few kinds and then each kind developed into various species as a result of natural selection. Of course it probably did take more than one day.

 

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2015/10/27/adams-rib/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William

 

The seven day creation theory is flawed.

 

“When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are.”- Martin Luther

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
AGustOfWind

But God can't lie. How could he tell us he took six days if he took longer?

 

 

Yes, it could stretch out the length of time covered in the Bible, but that wouldn't change the fact that the world was created in only six days. The word "father" is never used in describing the creation.

 

 

What are some of these "proven" facts? Are you aware of the fact that there are scientific facts that show the earth is young? You can find some of them at these sites:

 

https://answersingenesis.org/

 

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/

 

 

Which translation was it and why do you think it is accurate?

 

.

Actually there were probably fewer kinds then than there are today. God created a few kinds and then each kind developed into various species as a result of natural selection. Of course it probably did take more than one day.

 

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2015/10/27/adams-rib/

 

It was the RSV translation, the most accurate bible translation

Share this post


Link to post
atpollard

 

It was the RSV translation, the most accurate bible translation

You did not just claim that there was one 'best' translation did you? Really? ... [where is that facepalm emoji?]

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
You did not just claim that there was one 'best' translation did you? Really? ... [where is that facepalm emoji?]
I have to agree with that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
AGustOfWind

You did not just claim that there was one 'best' translation did you? Really? ... [where is that facepalm emoji?]

 

 

Didn't say best. I myself prefer NKJ or KJ, but, RSV is the most accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
RSV is the most accurate.
Based on what?

 

Share this post


Link to post
AGustOfWind
Based on what?

 

Word for word. And no addition of certain words.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
Word for word. And no addition of certain words.
That claim is not correct for a number of reasons. Would you be willing do some research online with me?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Happyflowerlady

As a senior citizen, I am probably in one of the last groups that grew up before everyone in the United States was taught that evolution was now an accepted fact, and not just a theory. I remember as a child that most of the older members of our church didn't believe in evolution, and believed that the earth was created by God, just like it says in the Bible.

For most of my life, I tried to resolve the two stories and make evolution and creation fit together. Then, I was introduced to the young earth idea, and realized that there is a lot of evidence for our earth only being a few thousand years old.

Evolution has never made much sense to me, if humans slowly evolved from lower life forms over the millenia, and we descended from the same ancestor as apes, then why are there missing pieces in that line of descent, and why are there still apes if we evolved to a hugher functioning species ?

The Bible plainly says that God made man "in His image", so that does not work with the idea that God started out with ameobas and developed them into mankind ; it means that we were created as mankind, right from the beginning.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Bobby Cole

 

Word for word. And no addition of certain words.

Ah, word for word........... Now we are getting to the dramatic part of the conversation for indeed I would ask as to how an English version of Koine or Aramaic could be done in such a literal fashion? Even the Koine Greek word for Holy or Hagios is not accurate for the root is that of Sacred. Holy is a derivative of a word that "sounds" like Hagios.

And let's not forget Aramaic for the word for Holy is qodesh which has it's own problems with an accurate translation. I.e. qodesha means whore.

 

Study to show thyself approved my friend. Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman who needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

hmmmm.........That's the second time I have used that verse here in as many days. It must be a good verse then!!

At any rate, we all need to study and let's face it, study is fun and I do so much love to have fun!!

 

Do forgive me for I have transgressed!! I am way off topic so maybe I can get back to it. Let's see..........EVOLUTION! Ah ha.......got it!!

uh....which type of evolution are we talking about? The horizontal type or the vertical?

 

Science and Theology are pretty much in agreement so far as a horizontal evolution goes. It simply calls for changes through adaptation through a continual circumstance or type of environment.

The vertical calls for an entire species to change into another. As @Happyflowerlady wrote there is no evidence that provides for an intermediate period of development in ANY species whereas such a dramatic change could have taken place.

 

God Bless...........Bobby

Share this post


Link to post
petesede

I am a believer in OC.

 

As a person with a degree in science, there is just too much ´science´ that I would have to disregard to believe in an earth that is 6000 years old. Or as I like to joke.. there are people in Texas who think the world is 6000 years old, yet work in the fossil fuel industry.

 

I also believe in the ´kind´ theory for the most part. Again, even non-religious people get this wrong and are not able to differentiate between evolution and natural selection. They are very different things. Natural selection is what makes rabbits in artic areas white. The more white the off-spring, the greater the chance of survival, which makes them all white after a few generations. You can do this with fruit-flies or beta fish in a month.

 

One idea i do discount though is the idea of ´intelligent design´ Evolution is ugly, wrong, massively wasteful and anything but intelligent. It is throwing 1000 things at a wall and seeing which one sticks. You put a bacteria in a solution, and 999,999,999 of them die and 1 lives, Evolution is carpet-bombing.. it is highly inaccurate and anything except intelligent.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
As a person with a degree in science, there is just too much ´science´ that I would have to disregard to believe in an earth that is 6000 years old. Or as I like to joke..

 

There's a big mess to clean up after the constipation of a Darwinian Evolutionist.

 

Here's a pretty funny video clip too:

 

[video=youtube;U0u3-2CGOMQ]

 

 

And a personal entry level favorite:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
LeapOfFaith89

Personally, I just can't believe the world was made in under ten thousand or even six thousand years. There are countless of artworks around the world that date older than that. While the Bible is holy book of God, I think pastors have misconfigured how old the world is from it, six thousand years is just to short of time for the world to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest theophilus
here are countless of artworks around the world that date older than that.

What are some of these artworks?

Share this post


Link to post
Serpardum

I believe in young earth creation, that the world is only 6000 or so years, however I have read some extra biblical books that state when god created the trees and plant life "an age came forth". This was only for the plants, which would explain why trees have so many rings, he made old trees in one day. Man and the animals were made young at one time. If God were to make a tree in front of you right now, how many rings would you suspect it to have? If it only had one, it wouldn't be a real tree but a pseudo tree.

 

It has been complained that the light from distant galaxies would take longer than 6000 years to get here at the speed of light. I have heard it theorized that the speed of light is slowing down. The speed of light is constant at any given time, but used to travel faster. I decided to look at the speed of light measurements over time and see if there was any indication of this.

[TABLE=border: 1, cellpadding: 3, cellspacing: 0]

[TR]

[TD]1849[/TD]

[TD]Fizeau[/TD]

[TD]Rotating toothed wheel[/TD]

[TD]313,000 (5000)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1850[/TD]

[TD]Foucault[/TD]

[TD]Rotating mirror[/TD]

[TD]298,000 (2000)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1875[/TD]

[TD]Cornu[/TD]

[TD]Rotating mirror[/TD]

[TD]299,990 (200)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1880[/TD]

[TD]Michelson[/TD]

[TD]Rotating mirror[/TD]

[TD]2990,910 (159)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1883[/TD]

[TD]Newcomb[/TD]

[TD]Rotating mirror[/TD]

[TD]299,860 (30)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1928[/TD]

[TD]Mittelstaedt[/TD]

[TD]Kerr cell shutter[/TD]

[TD]299,778 (10)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1932[/TD]

[TD]Pease and Pearson[/TD]

[TD]Rotating mirror[/TD]

[TD]299,774 (2)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1940[/TD]

[TD]Huttel[/TD]

[TD]Kerr cell shutter[/TD]

[TD]299,768 (10)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1951[/TD]

[TD]Bergstrand[/TD]

[TD]Kerr cell shutter[/TD]

[TD]299,793.1 (0.3) [/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

 

This is not enough evidence for any proof, of course, and there are statistical variations, but this could just be accounted for by the way the speed was measured. It is next to impossible to tell now, however, because science is defining time based on the speed of energy and as such time is measured by the speed of light or radiation decay which is tied in somehow (something about Planck's constant which I don't really understand).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
davy

 

I agree with your point JM, but the problem I experience is when a person shifts from "who" to "how". Those millions of years need filling, and Darwin's Evolution seemingly plugs the gap though often conflicting Scripture. While I respect your answer, and can see merit in it, I think sometimes it is best not to press someone. At the same time, I ask, is it really a good idea not to press someone and make them choose between Scripture and Darwinian Evolution? I met a guy once in another Christian forum that believes in OEC, Darwinian evolution, as well as an Intelligent Designer. One day, I observed some members kept pressing him hard on the issue, he finally came out and said, if I must choose, there is no way I can reject evolution because of evidence. Never seen him again, and he was a regular in discussions. Needlessly said, I couldn't see how the YEC party could claim victory.

 

God bless,

William

 

I'm sorry William, but it's an assumption without basis that a belief in OEC must involve Darwinism and evolution theory. Where does that thinking come from? simply from the fact that it may include a theory about the earth's fossil record being very old? I didn't know that was an automatic precursor to the belief in evolution theory. Simply recognizing that the fossil record points to a very ancient earth does not involve evolution theory unless... one then inserts Darwinist theory to go along with it. Nor does any such statement that one just cannot see how OEC doesn't include a theory of evolution exist as a proof that OEC does involve evolution either.

 

Going into Bible Scripture that points to OEC won't matter when YEC think OEC is about evolution no matter what one says. Those who believe it is have been subjected to YEC propaganda, making their minds closed.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest theophilus
recognizing that the fossil record points to a very ancient earth

Those who believe the fossil record shows and ancient earth ignore the reality of a worldwide flood. During this flood vast changes in the geology of the earth took place in a very short period of time. Here is what the Bible says about the subject:

Scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.

(2 Peter 3:3-6 ESV)

Here is a post I made in my blog about this subject: https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/flood-deniers-2/

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...
Articles - News