Are you a Baptist? Do you go to an actual Baptist church that believes the Bible is untrue or only accepts parts of the Word that they can agree with? :confused:
Poll concerning Creation(ism)
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by ReformedBaptist, Jun 9, 2008.
?
-
Literal, 6-day creation - young earth/universe.
68 vote(s)76.4% -
Gap Theory
5 vote(s)5.6% -
Progressive Creationism
9 vote(s)10.1% -
Theistic Evolution
8 vote(s)9.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
Page 11 of 14
-
It's a miracle of sun standing still proportions when I do think straight... -
OK... miracle just happened... my head is on straight now....
YOu say God would be deliberately deceiving us....
Yeah, IF HE HADN'T TOLD US WHAT HE DID!!
But he told us what he did in Genesis 1.
So therefore he is not deceiving us... -
New stars may be being formed, but that is not creation; they don't suddenly come into existence where there was nothing previously. http://www.astrosociety.org/education/family/resources/deepspace.html includes these words (emphasis mine):A star birth nebula (or star formation region) is a cloud of gas and dust in which new stars are being formed from the raw material of the cloud. In places where the cloud has become compressed (where the gas and dust are very close together), the gas and dust start "clumping."And at http://star.herts.ac.uk/progs/optirsurveys.html (again, emphasis mine):
The UKIDSS GPS uses three near infrared filters (J, H and K). Near infrared light penetrates the obscuring dust that fills the interstellar medium in the Galactic plane, thereby allowing us to detect stars that are on the far side of the Galaxy or enshrouded within a molecular cloud where new stars are being formed.I could just as well say that what is on the supermarket shelves is evidence that creation is still happening. The bread and cakes that are there today did not exist last week, at least not as bread and cakes. :)
-
I haven't heard this argument. How does the flood disprove the old earth theory? -
-
In reality, the more we understand about our universe the more the Bible is proven and evolution disproven. This is a case in point..
If the big bang theory is correct you would expect galexies to be somewhat evenly distributed throughout the universe with our galaxy randomly placed in the mix.
What we have found (thanks in part to new inventions like the hubble telescope) is that galaxies are clustered in spheres at 1 billion light year radii with (are you ready for this?) our galaxy in the middle. You don't find this discovery in many textbooks becuase it says that our galaxy is unique and, if evolution is true, that just can't be.
Rather, this points to a biblical rather than evolutionary explination of the formation of the galaxies. In other words, our planet is as close to the center of the universe as it is safe to be (any closer and the radiation at the center of our galaxy would harm us). God, again, is glorified!
So, the fossil record either shows a uniform history of the world that has taken millions of years OR it shows a cataclysmic event (worldwide flood) that caused the fossil record to come into existance. It is one or the other, can't be both.
Evolutionists (or old earthers) and creationists (usually young earthers) have the same data out there. They also both have their own bias.
The evolutionist says there is no God and, therefore, it had to take millions of years for all of this to form. They, therefore, stretch the fossil record out to fit their model of the world.
The creationist looks at the biblical account of creation, the geneologies in genesis and other places in the Bible, and the flood. They look at the fosil record and say, "Of course this came from a flood. It fits the fossil record perfectly." They see the fossil record forming mostly in one year (with a longer stretch for the one and only ice age that happened as a result of the flood). For a good discussion on this look at any number of videos on Mt St Helen.
This is one of the main reasons why someone says you either believe in millions of years of evolution OR a world wide flood but you can't believe in both. -
-
-
Who else but God could create from nothing? -
If you have read up on the subject, you'd know that the Milky Way and the Great Galaxy in Andromeda (which is larger than our own) are on a collission course. Hardly ordered perfection.
I don't have the time or the inclination to educate some preacher-cum-astronomer. Sorry. You really need to get your head out of pseudoscientific books. -
-
I'm sorry, MP, but you have been snowed by someone. I have been involved (through my time in the Air Force and as a contractor afterward) for the last 25 years in this field and you have been given bum data from your evolutionist friends.
Yes, we are at the center of the universe.
I didn't say clusters I said spheres. The galaxies are distributed in spheres of 1, 2, 3 etc billiion light years around us. It is a well known fact in astronautical engineering and astronomy circles.
And, no we are not in a collision course with Andromeda or any other galaxy. It seems (with some data) that we are slowly moving closer relative to each other but, as you probably know, the rapture will come a long time before we are in any danger and in need of Captain Kirk.
-
-
-
Or maybe we need the anti-drug PSA redone...
"This is your brain....
And THIS is your brain on fundamentalism!
Any questions?"
Seriously Bob, you have been sorely misinformed. As for "evolutionist friends", biological evolution has nothing at all to do with cosmology and the beginning of the universe. So much for physicist-cum-evangelist credibility!
I also want to add, I am not attacking you...I just find it somewhat amusing, and somewhat tragic, what fundamentalism does to a person's mind. We will never agree on these issues, so I wish you the best. -
David,
This article helps to expain what I'm talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_(video)
Les -
Tifft, W.G. and Cocke, W.J., Global redshift quantization, Astrophysical J. 287:492–502, 1984.
Newman, W.I., Haynes, M.P. and Terzian, Y., Redshift data and statistical inference, Astrophysical J. 431(1/pt.1):147–155, 1994.
Cocke, W.J. and Tifft, W.G., Statistical procedure and the significance of periodicities in double-galaxy redshifts, Astrophysical J. 368(2):383–389, 1991.
Napier, W.M. and Guthrie, B.N.G., Quantized redshifts: a status report, J. Astrophysics and Astronomy 18(4):455–463, 1997.
A quote from the last paper (above):
‘ … the redshift distribution has been found to be strongly quantized in the galactocentric frame of reference. The phenomenon is easily seen by eye and apparently cannot be ascribed to statistical artefacts, selection procedures or flawed reduction techniques. Two galactocentric periodicities have so far been detected, ~ 71.5 km s-1 in the Virgo cluster, and ~ 37.5 km s-1 for all other spiral galaxies within ~ 2600 km s-1 [roughly 100 million light years]. The formal confidence levels associated with these results are extremely high.’
I hope this helps.
Oh, and MP, galactocentric means revolvin' 'round little ol' us. -
lbaker,
Like you requested, the references above are secular.
I am curious about one thing, though. Don't you find it a little disturbing that you feel you can trust the science of secular journals (with people that usually have a bias against God) more than you can trust born again scientists? -
And, to be fair and balanced, here is a creationist take on the whole issue:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp
Page 11 of 14