• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What does the Bible say about the origins of the Earth in relation to what science say?

SA Huguenot

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
perhaps you can assist me in the question of what came first, the rock, or the fossil.
or perhaps the human footprint.
500 Million-Year-Old Human Footprint Fossil Baffles Scientists
Meister became a Christian from geological Atheism when he discovered this fossil.
Lucky for us, he has the positive and negative side of this fossil as he opened the rock.
No Atheist can say he chipped it oit of rock and it is a hoax.

So, which is it, the fossil...rock...human...???
 
SA Huguenot

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
You do realize that both Flew and Collins know that the flood story is a myth, don't you?
Click to expand...
Sure, no problem to me about their thoughts,
But do you realise that they studied Science to become the most known men in their field...
TO REALISE ATHEISM IS A FLOP AND THERE MUST BE A CREATOR?
THEY LEARNED THIS FROM SCIENCE!!
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SA Huguenot said:
perhaps you can assist me in the question of what came first, the rock, or the fossil.
or perhaps the human footprint.
500 Million-Year-Old Human Footprint Fossil Baffles Scientists
Meister became a Christian from geological Atheism when he discovered this fossil.
Lucky for us, he has the positive and negative side of this fossil as he opened the rock.
No Atheist can say he chipped it oit of rock and it is a hoax.

So, which is it, the fossil...rock...human...???
Click to expand...
Try to use valid sources.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SA Huguenot said:
Sure, no problem to me about their thoughts,
But do you realise that they studied Science to become the most known men in their field...
TO REALISE ATHEISM IS A FLOP AND THERE MUST BE A CREATOR?
THEY LEARNED THIS FROM SCIENCE!!
Click to expand...
Nope. Do you value your mythical Bible? Perhaps you should try to follow the Commandments, especially the Ninth one.
 
SA Huguenot

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Try to use valid sources.
Click to expand...
Tell me,
Do you know of any source where a person can give evidence that a trilobite, in a human footprint in a rock can be shown, that will not be labled as creationist?
heck pal, this fossil and prints are available for scrutiny by the scientific world, but they REFUSE TO PUBLISH ANYTHING ABOUT IT!
so, what do you think they do?
Go to the Christians, supply them with the evidence, in this case a rock with a trilobite in a human footprint, and allow the Christians to prove you Atheists are fools.
This is what the Bible calls Atheists. Psalm 14: 1
Fools.
Newton calls you that too!
 
J

JJ50

Well-Known Member
SA Huguenot said:
Sure, no problem to me about their thoughts,
But do you realise that they studied Science to become the most known men in their field...
TO REALISE ATHEISM IS A FLOP AND THERE MUST BE A CREATOR?
THEY LEARNED THIS FROM SCIENCE!!
Click to expand...
You don't half talk some silly nonsense!
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
So you are not a one hundred percent "it happened just like the Bible says it did" believer. Still your beliefs are deep in wingnut land. You keep ignoring the evidence that tells you a worldwide flood never happened. And the fact that there is no scientific evidence for any of your beliefs. That there is no scientific evidence for your beliefs should tell you something.
Click to expand...

In part, I wrote "You have denied that the both testaments routinely show "son of" can also mean "notable descendant of", but if I said the Flood happened 10,000 years ago," and your disdain for Bible facts and for my use of the word "IF" is noted.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
BilliardsBall said:
In part, I wrote "You have denied that the both testaments routinely show "son of" can also mean "notable descendant of", but if I said the Flood happened 10,000 years ago," and your disdain for Bible facts and for my use of the word "IF" is noted.
Click to expand...

The point is that it does not matter when you claim that the Flood of Genesis occurred. We know that the Bible narrative is myth. Like most myths is was probably inspired by a real event, but the event, a local flood, had very little to do with reality.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SA Huguenot said:
Tell me,
Do you know of any source where a person can give evidence that a trilobite, in a human footprint in a rock can be shown, that will not be labled as creationist?
heck pal, this fossil and prints are available for scrutiny by the scientific world, but they REFUSE TO PUBLISH ANYTHING ABOUT IT!
so, what do you think they do?
Go to the Christians, supply them with the evidence, in this case a rock with a trilobite in a human footprint, and allow the Christians to prove you Atheists are fools.
This is what the Bible calls Atheists. Psalm 14: 1
Fools.
Newton calls you that too!
Click to expand...
Wow! You need to back off of the conspiracy theories. If such a find occurred it would make worldwide news. That one has to find it in an obscure source tells us that it was bogus. Once again creationist would have a hay day if that actually happened instead we see them make idiotic claim after idiotic claim that are little different from the beliefs of Flat Earthers.

And too bad that you did not understand Psalm 14 1. It does not claim what you say that it claims:

"The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good."

It would be just as true if it said:

"The fool says in his heart, “There is a God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good."

If there is any truth to the Bible at all it would realize that an emotional belief "in his heart" is not a valid reason for belief. Beliefs should be rational.
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
SA Huguenot said:
You see, the Atheist and Muslim are verry arogant in their quest to destroy any Biblical truth, and they think they can use science against Biblical statements.
Click to expand...

Bible statement: The highest mountains were covered in water.
Science: There was never a worldwide flood.






SA Huguenot said:
I simply love it whan an Atheist hears what I learned, and then say:
"I did not know that!"
Click to expand...
I very seriously doubt that you can post anything like that.
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
SA Huguenot said:
I myself knows hundreds of scientists who became Christian after thye learned that their discoveries confirms what the Bible say.
Click to expand...

Of course, we will accept that you personally know hundreds of scientists.
Of course, we will accept that you personally know hundreds of scientists who became Christians.



SA Huguenot said:
List of converts to Christianity from nontheism - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Magicians use misdirection to fool their audience.
Creationists use misdirection in a silly vain attempt to fool their audience.

Just a quick look showed your duplicity, or, at least, the duplicity of the part of the people who put together the wiki page. However, since you posted it, you bear responsibility.

Converted to Catholicism[edit]
G. E. M. Anscombe – analytic philosopher, Thomist, literary executor for Ludwig Wittgenstein, and author of Modern Moral Philosophy; converted to Catholicism as a result of her extensive reading[16]​

From an internal link we can see:
Anscombe was born to Gertrude Elizabeth Anscombe (née Thomas) and Captain Allen Wells Anscombe, on 18 March 1919, in Limerick, Ireland, where her father had been stationed with the Royal Welch Fusiliers during the Irish War of Independence.[4] Both her mother and father were involved with education. Her mother was a headmistress and her father went on to head a department at Dulwich College.[5]

Anscombe attended Sydenham High School and then, in 1937, went on to read literae humaniores ('Greats') at St Hugh's College, Oxford. She was awarded a Second Class in her honour moderations in 1939 and (albeit it with reservations on the part of her Ancient History examiners[6]) a First in her degree finals in 1941.[5] While still at Sydenham High School, she was converted to the Roman Catholic faith, and during her first undergraduate year she was received into the church. She remained a lifelong devout Catholic.[5]​

Where does it say she was ever an atheist? I seriously doubt that many girls born in the early 20th Century in Ireland were raised as an atheist. The article says she converted to Catholicism, but not from what.
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
SA Huguenot said:
How a world famous geneticist went from staunch atheist to Christian convert - Premier Christianity
Click to expand...
From your link...

Collins has become a controversial figure both in Christian and Atheist circles. Many Christian groups do not agree with Collins’ attempts to justify evolutionary theory in the light of Christian beliefs, while many Atheists question the sincerity of Collins’ former atheism and the reasoning behind his conversion.
It is worth noting, however, that as deeply involved and devoted to the world of science as Collins remains, he also remains a convicted apologist for the truth of Christian faith; unable to see a contradiction between the two.
​
He doesn't see a contradiction between the two?!? That's indeed the stuff of a split personality.
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
SA Huguenot said:
From Atheism to Christianity: a Personal Journey
Click to expand...
From your link:
Why, in any case, should I take religion seriously, I thought, when the existence of evil and suffering clearly discredited the Christian claim that our world owed its existence to a benevolent Creator?​
Those are not the words of someone who came by his atheism as a result of rational thinking. Rather, they are the words of someone who was disappointed in God. There is a huge difference.

On another forum, there is a section where believers tell their own stories of coming to atheism after being raised in religious homes. Hundreds and hundreds of first-person accounts.


What's your point?
 
Last edited:
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
ecco said:
Of course, we will accept that you personally know hundreds of scientists.
Of course, we will accept that you personally know hundreds of scientists who became Christians.




Magicians use misdirection to fool their audience.
Creationists use misdirection in a silly vain attempt to fool their audience.

Just a quick look showed your duplicity, or, at least, the duplicity of the part of the people who put together the wiki page. However, since you posted it, you bear responsibility.

Converted to Catholicism[edit]
G. E. M. Anscombe – analytic philosopher, Thomist, literary executor for Ludwig Wittgenstein, and author of Modern Moral Philosophy; converted to Catholicism as a result of her extensive reading[16]​

From an internal link we can see:
Anscombe was born to Gertrude Elizabeth Anscombe (née Thomas) and Captain Allen Wells Anscombe, on 18 March 1919, in Limerick, Ireland, where her father had been stationed with the Royal Welch Fusiliers during the Irish War of Independence.[4] Both her mother and father were involved with education. Her mother was a headmistress and her father went on to head a department at Dulwich College.[5]

Anscombe attended Sydenham High School and then, in 1937, went on to read literae humaniores ('Greats') at St Hugh's College, Oxford. She was awarded a Second Class in her honour moderations in 1939 and (albeit it with reservations on the part of her Ancient History examiners[6]) a First in her degree finals in 1941.[5] While still at Sydenham High School, she was converted to the Roman Catholic faith, and during her first undergraduate year she was received into the church. She remained a lifelong devout Catholic.[5]​

Where does it say she was ever an atheist? I seriously doubt that many girls born in the early 20th Century in Ireland were raised as an atheist. The article says she converted to Catholicism, but not from what.
Click to expand...

Everything about her bio would suggest that her family were Protestant, Church of England.
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
BilliardsBall said:
I have been forthcoming and have little problem with a recent Flood and fairly recent Creation.

You have denied that the both testaments routinely show "son of" can also mean "notable descendant of",
Click to expand...
That is not true. I've stated that you are trying to divert to avoid addressing the question.


BilliardsBall said:
but if I said the Flood happened 10,000 years ago, you'd all but unable to show human writing or great empires, etc. before that time. You'd like to me to "understand" that homo sapiens has been the alpha for a million years and "happened" to ascend to intellectual prowess about the time of the Flood--or that the human population was small at the time of the Flood after being the reproducing alpha for a million years. Occam's, man!
Click to expand...

This is interesting. You have been unable to show where Bishop Ussher's calculations were wrong. Instead, you have ducked and dodged. Now you are telling me what I want you to understand and that I want you to believe that man has been around for a million years. What utter rubbish.

Stop evading.
Stop trying to imagine what I am going to say to you.
You asserted Bishop Ussher's calculations were wrong.
I asked you to show how/why they were wrong.

You haven't.



So, now it's time to stop beating a very dead horse. You believe Ussher is wrong, but you obviously know next to nothing about how he came to his conclusions. Maybe you should have taken the time to educate yourself a little, after all, it is your religion.

Ussher chronology - Wikipedia
By the middle of the 19th century, Ussher's chronology came under increasing attack from supporters of uniformitarianism, who argued that Ussher's "young Earth" was incompatible with the increasingly accepted view of an Earth much more ancient than Ussher's. It became generally accepted that the Earth was tens, perhaps even hundreds of millions of years old. Ussher fell into disrepute among theologiansas well; in 1890, Princeton professor William Henry Green wrote a highly influential article in Bibliotheca Sacra entitled "Primeval Chronology" in which he strongly criticised Ussher. He concluded:

We conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.[12]​

The similarly conservative theologian B. B. Warfield reached the same conclusion in "On The Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race",[13]commenting that "it is precarious in the highest degree to draw chronological inferences from genealogical tables".

​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top