Christian Forums

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKszVKurM6I

Did the biblical flood cover the entire earth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGQmcQKki-A

Most Christians don't know this about the tower of Babel.

True and false accounts of history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ_xVj-R5nE

Schools teach this as scientific fact, but it's verifiably wrong.

More problems with the theory of evolution.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Dec 14, 2024 - 10:48:17https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ_xVj-R5nE

Schools teach this as scientific fact, but it's verifiably wrong.

More problems with the theory of evolution.

A good video because it actually is understandable to the average layman.

Thanks.

Quote from: Rella on Tue Dec 17, 2024 - 05:57:29A good video because it actually is understandable to the average layman.

Thanks.

I think Answers In Genesis Canada is one of the better one's, for breaking things down for everyone to understand. I also think that those who are capable of doing such, are more likely the one's who best understand what they are preaching about. If one cannot break down what they believe in simple enough terms for others to understand, I question how well they really know or understand what they are preaching themselves. If not wonder what they might be wanting to hide, in the mysteries they are supposedly able to understand, but not capable of explaining. Cause they are so very smart of course.

https://www.livescience.com/space/cosmology/james-webb-space-telescope-smashes-its-own-record-to-find-the-earliest-galaxies-that-ever-existed

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis is mine.

QuoteJames Webb Space Telescope smashes its own record to find the earliest galaxies that ever existed

The James Webb Space Telescope has spotted five galaxy candidates dating to just 200 million years after the Big Bang, making them the earliest ever detected. And there could be many more.

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has discovered a handful of possible galaxies that could be among the earliest to ever exist.

Located 13.6 billion light-years away and just 200 million years after the Big Bang, the five galaxy candidates are the earliest ever detected, and likely some of the first to have formed in the ancient universe.

If confirmed by follow-up observations, the ancient galaxies will offer astronomers a test of their best theories of galaxy formation along with unique insights into how matter first coalesced across the cosmos. The researchers published their findings Nov. 26 on the preprint database arXiv, so they have not yet been peer-reviewed.

"According to the standard paradigm of structure formation, the same primordial fluctuations that gave rise to hot and cold spots in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) will eventually grow, collapse, and form the first galaxies during cosmic dawn, ushering in the epoch of first light," the researchers wrote in their study.

"These first galaxies have remained outside of our observational reach for decades," they added. Yet the JWST has changed that.

Cosmologists previously estimated that the first clumps of stars began to merge and form galaxies just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.

Then, just 1 to 2 billion years into the universe's life, current theories suggest that these early protogalaxies arrived at adolescence — forming into dwarf galaxies that devoured each other to grow into ones like our own.

But finding the exact timing of this process, and the speeds at which the earliest steps occurred, is challenging because the light from these galaxies is so faint, and the universe's expansion has dramatically stretched (or redshifted) their wavelengths out into the infrared spectrum.

Unlike its predecessor, the Hubble Space Telescope, JWST can detect light in the infrared spectrum, giving the telescope access to the first stages of the universe. But the light from our universe's extremely early epochs is still too dim to be detected on its own.

To get around this, the researchers behind the new observations — made as part of the Galactic Legacy Infrared Midplane Survey Extraordinaire (GLIMPSE) project — took advantage of a phenomenon known as gravitational lensing to magnify the distant light of these early galaxies.

As Einstein outlined in his theory of general relativity, gravity is the curving and distortion of space-time in the presence of matter and energy. This curved space, in turn, dictates how energy and matter move.

This means that even though light travels in a straight line, it can be bent and magnified by gravity. In this case, the galaxy Abell S1063 sits between the region they chose to study and our solar system, focusing the early galaxy's light so it can be viewed by telescopes.

By pointing JWST at this region of curved space and slowly collecting the light beaming in from behind it, the astronomers pushed the telescope to the limits of its capabilities, catching the first faint glimmers from the early galaxies.

If confirmed by further studies, these galaxy candidates will be younger than the earliest confirmed galaxy, JADES-GS-z14-0, by roughly 90 million years — placing them among the very first that could ever be formed. And the fact that they were all found within the same region of sky suggests that there could be many more of them out there.

So how did galaxies like these grow so quickly? Answers to the cosmic mystery remain elusive, but it's unlikely they will break our current understanding of cosmology. Instead, astronomers are toying with explanations that include the earlier-than-anticipated appearance of giant black holes, feedback from supernova explosions, or even the influence of dark energy to explain the rapid formation of the stars within them.

Yes, they are toying with their best guesses concerning that which they were formerly wrong about. This is unlikely to shake their confidence in their own observations of course, as stated in the article. Faith in themselves is the key to their faith based observations and theories. Never mind how many times they have proved themselves wrong before and now again. Nor how much credence their new discoveries lend to the theory of special and rapid creation by God. They simply will not go there. Their faith will not allow for it.

Nevertheless and once again, increased knowledge of extremely rapid formation of galaxies after the supposed big bang, is evidence creation-ward over evolution-ward. Just like continuing to find complexity further and further back in time, being suggestive of complexity from the beginning, rather than slowly developing over deep time. Just like finding dinosaur soft tissue becoming a norm, being suggestive of recent creation over deep time evolution. All continuing evidences being ignored by those of the evolutionary faith. Because that is how faith is.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Dec 21, 2024 - 10:05:54https://www.livescience.com/space/cosmology/james-webb-space-telescope-smashes-its-own-record-to-find-the-earliest-galaxies-that-ever-existed

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis is mine.

Yes, they are toying with their best guesses concerning that which they were formerly wrong about. This is unlikely to shake their confidence in their own observations of course, as stated in the article. Faith in themselves is the key to their faith based observations and theories. Never mind how many times they have proved themselves wrong before and now again. Nor how much credence their new discoveries lend to the theory of special and rapid creation by God. They simply will not go there. Their faith will not allow for it.

Nevertheless and once again, increased knowledge of extremely rapid formation of galaxies after the supposed big bang, is evidence creation-ward over evolution-ward. Just like continuing to find complexity further and further back in time, being suggestive of complexity from the beginning, rather than slowly developing over deep time. Just like finding dinosaur soft tissue becoming a norm, being suggestive of recent creation over deep time evolution. All continuing evidences being ignored by those of the evolutionary faith. Because that is how faith is.

And you think that means it likely happened the way you think?  What a joke!!  All these years or your being totally uninformed concerning anything science or scientific and you haven't bothered to inform yourself even a tiny bit about it.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Dec 21, 2024 - 11:20:22And you think that means it likely happened the way you think?  What a joke!!  All these years or your being totally uninformed concerning anything science or scientific and you haven't bothered to inform yourself even a tiny bit about it.

I'm sorry my questioning your faith, in accordance with my own bothers you so. Speak and say as you wish, but you do not have a clue as to what I have bothered to inform myself of regarding  science or not. Not that you would ever consider anyone who disagrees with you informed. I freely admit, that I do not consider deep time evolutionists to be correctly informed or enlightened. I believe their faith in their own selves, leaves them in the dark, without the guiding true light of scripture as their basis. Nevertheless, they are well educated concerning their own erroneous views.

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21 Therefore let no man glory in men...... 

Quote from: Amo on Sat Dec 21, 2024 - 11:59:29I'm sorry my questioning your faith, in accordance with my own bothers you so.

You can question my faith all you want. That doesn't bother me at all. What you call and think questioning my faith is, or anyone else's faith, is in fact nothing more than disagreeing with your beliefs.  Whoever doesn't hold to your views is accused of false faith.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Dec 21, 2024 - 11:59:29Speak and say as you wish, but you do not have a clue as to what I have bothered to inform myself of regarding  science or not.

In your case, what you have informed yourself regarding science is all to obvious.  You are to science what a Muslim is to theology.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Dec 21, 2024 - 11:59:29Not that you would ever consider anyone who disagrees with you informed. I freely admit, that I do not consider deep time evolutionists to be correctly informed or enlightened.

You haven't the ability to even assess even the slightest bit about whether or not such people are correctly informed or enlightened.  It is quite beyond your intellectual grasp of the subject. And that by choice; you seem to choose to stay ignorant on the subject.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Dec 21, 2024 - 11:59:29I believe their faith in their own selves, leaves them in the dark, without the guiding true light of scripture as their basis. Nevertheless, they are well educated concerning their own erroneous views.

What you believe in that regard is all rather extraneous and meaningless.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Dec 21, 2024 - 11:59:291Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21 Therefore let no man glory in men......

That entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 3 is about divisions within the church.  You and your particular brand of Christianity is an example of what Paul was lamenting there.  Maybe you should spend some quiet time in study of what Paul was really saying in that chapter.

QuoteYou can question my faith all you want. That doesn't bother me at all. What you call and think questioning my faith is, or anyone else's faith, is in fact nothing more than disagreeing with your beliefs.  Whoever doesn't hold to your views is accused of false faith.

Of course, that is the point. My belief is that the holy scriptures are the best account and authority of truth. And that all others are misplaced faiths, as scripture itself declares. Non truths. My belief that Genesis is a literal historical account of creation concerning the time frame in particular, and your belief that it is a symbolic or allegorical representation of deep time, do not mix. If one is correct, the other is not.

There is no avoiding the fact that if I am right, then your view is wrong, and if you are right then mine is wrong. Our faiths are mutually exclusive. Either the Genesis account of creation is true as literally stated, or it represents something else which needs humanities input to be properly understood. This opening the door of course, to the many varying views which humanity might come up with. This does not seem to me, to be what the scriptures declare concerning themselves.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Psa 33:1 Rejoice in the LORD, O ye righteous: for praise is comely for the upright. 2 Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings. 3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise. 4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth. 5 He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.[/quote]

Jhn 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

1Th 2:12 That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory. 13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

QuoteIn your case, what you have informed yourself regarding science is all to obvious.  You are to science what a Muslim is to theology.

Interesting. What hat have you pulled this apparent insulting  observation out of? Obviously not holy scripture. Is it an insulting argument against Fundamentalism? Including Christian Fundamentalism? Such as the Pope's declaration that all Fundamentalists are violent terrorists, whether they believe in and or condone violence or not? And what should be done with violent terrorists? Any who wish to see where such radical declarations are going, may easily see and perceive of such. Please do clarify and expound upon this statement.

QuoteYou haven't the ability to even assess even the slightest bit about whether or not such people are correctly informed or enlightened.  It is quite beyond your intellectual grasp of the subject. And that by choice; you seem to choose to stay ignorant on the subject.

Ah the old, I'm simply intellectually superior to you, argument. I myself and others like me simply are not smart or knowledgeable enough to acknowledge the truth you see and understand. That is why we disagree with your highness's. I do truly see and understand that you believe those who place greater faith in what holy scripture simply and plainly states, are ignorant. I am not offended by this though. I to think that you are ignorant for placing to much faith in fallen humanities observations over and above what holy scripture simply and plainly states.

As a matter of fact, I do also believe that your blindness and ignorance are exactly due to your rejection of the plain testimony of holy scripture in favor of the supposed wisdom of this world. For what you believe is not found in scripture anywhere at all, even by way of suggestion. We simply have two very different sources of authentic authority. Two very different faiths. It is not a matter of unintelligence we are addressing. It is absolutely a matter of different faiths. Therefore, I feel no need to insult your intelligence. But rather to question your faith.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 

Who or what are you seeking to please by your faith?

QuoteWhat you believe in that regard is all rather extraneous and meaningless.

My exact contentions regarding what you believe. God will ultimately determine which of us was correct, if either.

QuoteThat entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 3 is about divisions within the church.  You and your particular brand of Christianity is an example of what Paul was lamenting there.  Maybe you should spend some quiet time in study of what Paul was really saying in that chapter.

As a matter of fact, I have spent a great deal of the last 45 years in quiet prayerful study of the holy scriptures in their entirety. Not just the writings of Paul, which scripture itself testifies many have and do twist unto their own self destructive understandings. I have read the holy scripture from cover to cover many times over, and continue to do so, as I believe they are without question the authoritative truth. The is how I know with certainty, that it is your own deep time evolutionary beliefs that are not found or even ever suggested in any way, shape, or form in holy scripture. Therefore do I cast your own admittedly very good advice for all, back upon you.

You do not use scripture in these debates, because you cannot. There are no scriptures to back up your beliefs regarding deep time evolution. Yet here you are suggesting that the apostle Paul was addressing people like me who base their entire system of belief upon holy scripture alone, as the one's who need to study it more frequently. Here we, share some of Paul's testimony which backs up your beliefs in deep time evolution, and I will share Pauls testimonies which back up my contentions again. As I have already done many times over on these boards, and as you have not. Ever! Because you cannot. I highly recommend that you prayerfully consider following your own advice.

I will again repeat some of Paul's testimony in greater context regarding the authority of scripture as the highest standard for authentic Christians. Please do take his advice and establish your deep time evolutionary views by his writings or holy scripture.

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Again, please do share any of Paul's testimonies or scripture at all, that supports your deep time evolutionary views. Seeing that you have obviously spent a great deal of quiet time studying the writings of Paul and holy scripture. As you wisely admonish myself and others no doubt, to do. Perhaps I have missed the obvious right in front of my face.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Dec 22, 2024 - 10:22:19Interesting. What hat have you pulled this apparent insulting  observation out of?

Yours.

https://lifehopeandtruth.com/god/is-there-a-god/the-origin-of-life/are-single-cells-really-simple/

Quoted article below from link above.

QuoteOrigin of Life: Are Single Cells Really Simple?

How did life begin? Many believe it began by chance as a simple single-celled organism. But even the simplest cells reveal evidence of intelligent design.

Evidence of evolution or creation?

In the late 19th century, discoveries pointed to an ordered universe that a number of influential scientists believed could be explained through science and mathematics alone. It seemed that God was becoming more and more marginalized. Scientific materialism began making the case that natural laws were adequate to explain the observed universe without the need for God.

Then came the discoveries of the 20th century that were so profound as to dwarf what had come before. We have peered deeply into space to see a cosmos never before envisioned. We have looked inside the atom to discover an equally surprising world of quantum mechanics. We have also made incredible advances in understanding life, including the complex molecular processes occurring within each living cell.

A number of scientists have come to the conclusion that these advances, rather than undermining their belief in the existence of God, have greatly strengthened it.

The design and complexity of the cell

In light of all this, let's consider the most basic form of life to see if it is really simple—or if there is an elegant complexity that points to intelligent design.

Obviously a short article can only scratch the surface of the vast amount of information about the amazing inner workings of the cell. As Dr. Fazale Rana wrote in The Cell's Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator's Artistry, "Careful consideration of the hallmark characteristics of biochemical systems suggests the work of a Mastermind. ...

"Rather than relying on a single biochemical feature (like irreducible complexity) to argue for a Creator's role in life's origins, the case for biochemical intelligent design is erected upon a weight of evidence argument. Each feature, in and of itself, points to the work of a Creator. And collectively, the individual strands of evidence intertwine and mutually support one another to make the case that much more compelling" (2008, p. 270).

This article can only give a brief glimpse of such evidence—but even this basic view is fascinating and convincing.

Chance or cause?

The basic concept of scientific materialism is that nothing exists that cannot be completely explained by science. Anything outside natural science is considered outside scientific purview. Because God cannot be measured by science, many have rejected Him as the first cause of life.

The concept of evolution expounded in Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species has been generally accepted by the scientific community. The theory of evolution states that all life gradually evolved from single-celled organisms over billions of years through the process of natural selection.

In spite of the title of Darwin's book, the origin of life is a huge problem for scientists and was not addressed in his theory.

In spite of the title of Darwin's book, the origin of life is a huge problem for scientists and was not addressed in his theory.

If modern cells evolved from the simplest possible cell, which of its interconnected parts and systems came first? In attempting to answer such questions, the idea that God created life becomes far more credible than any evolutionary theory.

Which came first? A cell needs both "doors" and "walls"

Every living cell, from single-cell organisms to the cells of humans, is complex. No cells have been discovered in some stage of partial development. In other words, there is no physical evidence of the evolution of cells.

Virtually all cells have a double-layered membrane made of phospholipid molecules. These molecules combine to form the cell membrane that protects the inside of the cell a bit like the walls of a house. The internal workings of a cell cannot function without this protective membrane.

However, on its own, a lipid bilayer membrane would effectively seal the cell away from resources it needs: A living cell must be able to bring needed molecules in and out! So the membranes must include a complex array of protein transporters to serve as the cellular "doors."

Lacking either the lipid bilayer or the protein transporters, a cell can't live. In essence, both the "doors" and the "walls" had to be present from the beginning. (See the article "Irreducible Complexity" for additional information.) God explains in the first few chapters of Genesis that He created all life (which must have included both of these features of the cell) at once.

Genetics and metabolism: Who wrote the genetic code?

Next, let's look deeper than the membrane. Modern cells produce their own transporters (and countless other proteins necessary for survival) following the instructions in their genes.

Incredibly, every living organism has the exact same chemical process for storing information (genetics) and translating the genetic code to produce proteins (one type of metabolism).This is known as the universality of the genetic code, since every known living organism has genes made of DNA.

But how could these interdependent systems based on dissimilar molecules have evolved? Could the universal genetic code have "emerged" by chance?

Many theories have been proposed for the evolution of the genetic code, but, as the scientific paper "Origin and Evolution of the Genetic Code: the Universal Enigma" concludes:

"Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: 'why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?', that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years."

For example, consider this challenge mentioned earlier in the paper:

"At the heart of this problem is a dreary vicious circle: what would be the selective force behind the evolution of the extremely complex translation system before there were functional proteins? And, of course, there could be no proteins without a sufficiently effective translation system."

Reviewing genetics

To understand the dilemmas involved, it is useful to have a brief review of the way cells use their genetic molecules to store information, copy that information and manufacture proteins—a cell's molecular machinery. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) stores all biological information in every cell. James Watson and Francis Crick discovered its famous double-helix structure.

The vertical sides of this "twisting ladder" are formed by alternating molecules of sugar (deoxyribose) and phosphate groups. The rungs of the ladder are made of pairs of four bases: adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine. These are designated by their first letters: A, C, G and T. These bases match up so that A always links to T and C always links to G.

There is no limit to the length of a DNA strand that can store and encode genetic information in its strings of A, C, G and T. Segments of DNA, called genes, carry the code to make proteins from chains of components called amino acids. Along a gene, each set of three bases represents one amino acid or signals the end of the chain.

To actually produce proteins, three different types of ribonucleic acids (RNA) play a role: messenger RNA, ribosomal RNA and transfer RNA. Messenger RNA copies the gene sequence from the DNA and brings it to the ribosome. The ribosomal RNA provides the chemical machinery to link amino acids together in the exact order dictated by the messenger RNA. Finally, individual transfer RNA molecules bring the correct amino acids into place, matching each set of three bases to the amino acid it represents. Eventually a complete protein is assembled.

The intricacy of a living cell

If this process sounds complicated, it is indeed astoundingly complex and only a part of the intricacy of a living cell. All elements of a cell are combined in an amazing mosaic of functionality. Remove one piece, and the whole system may collapse!

All living cells have the complete functionality described above. Could such a complex system have just randomly sprung into being?

In his book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, physicist Stephen Barr refers to a study giving thought to the minimum requirements for a self-reproducing one-celled organism. "It appears that it needs to have quite an elaborate structure, involving dozens of different proteins, a genetic code containing at least 250 genes, and many tens of thousands of bits of information. For chemicals to combine in random ways in a 'primordial soup' to produce a strand of DNA or RNA containing such a huge amount of genetic information would be as hard as for a monkey to accidentally type an epic poem" (2006, p. 74).

What really came first?

Natural laws of physics cannot explain the origin of life and the genetic code that seems to define it (see "Creation Demands a Creator"). Neither can natural selection, since that process requires existing life. The only other alternative science offers is pure chance.

But what are the odds? Biophysicist Hubert Yockey determined that natural selection would have to evaluate about 1055 (that's 1 followed by 55 zeros!) different genetic codes per second to find the universal genetic code (referenced in The Cell's Design, p. 273). Would you want to bet on those astronomical odds?

There is another alternative revealed in the Bible. There is a God, and He is responsible for the origin of life. Consider these passages:

"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion. ... So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:26-27).

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him and without Him nothing was made that was made" (John 1:1-3).

"O LORD, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all. The earth is full of Your possessions. ... You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; and You renew the face of the earth" (Psalm 104:24, 30).

"For by Him [Jesus] all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him" (Colossians 1:16).

God existed before the physical universe (see "Who Created God?"), and the physical evidence points to a miraculous origin of life. There is no evidence of a gradual emergence of the complex cell membranes and the genetic code common to all organisms. The cells of all living things are similar and have a consistent, intricate and interdependent design that could only result from an instantaneous creation of life.

So what came first? God did, and His creation was perfect, not incomplete. As Moses said in praising God: "For I proclaim the name of the LORD: ascribe greatness to our God. He is the Rock, His work is perfect" (Deuteronomy 32:3-4).

This perfect creation—life—is one of the many proofs that God exists. For more on this important subject, see the articles in the section "Proof of God." Be sure to look at all the evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/vvWq91o1KRk

Good short video.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Dec 14, 2024 - 10:33:34Did the biblical flood cover the entire earth?

NO!

Quote from: Amo on Sat Dec 14, 2024 - 10:48:17Schools teach this as scientific fact...

Because it's well established and verified fact, wake up already, nothing you say, do, or copy and paste is going to change verified science. You and the other weird people that think like you are falling off a cliff if you continue to keep your mind closed like a trap door. And don't give me any malarkey about faith and scriptures, it's obvious that you manipulate them into what you want them to say. 

Ah yes. The old accuse your opponents of doing exactly what you are doing. In this case, accusing people who believe what the bible simply states, of manipulating them into what they wish to believe. While people who believe as you do, which can be found nowhere in scripture at all, are the ones who really properly believe and apply scripture. And this is true of course, because you said so.

With the approval of the members of the ever evolving story of evolution, continuously correcting itself of the previous mistakes it made due mostly to a lack of information/knowledge. Ever learning and evolving their theories as needed, according to their own supposed superior "scientific" understanding.

2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

Are not bible professing or believing Christinas, believing in deep time evolution today, still withstanding Moses? Denying the creation account he penned under the inspiration of God, and the fourth commandment of God spoken to humanity with his own mouth, and written for us with His own finger? You can call fallen humanities best guesses apart from the word of God scientific fact all you want. Such has nothing to do with truth though, but according to the vain imaginations of men. I cast your own advice back upon you. Wake up, nothing you say, do, or repeat, which has been taught to you by the supposed wise of this world, will make the vain imaginings of fallen humanity truth or verified facts. They are and will only remain guesses concerning that which none of us were there to observe.

Of course we do observe a great deal today along the lines of catastrophic events, concerning cause and effect, which leans heavily towards supporting the global catastrophe the bible speaks of. All of which deep timer evolutionists ignore or reject according to their chosen faith in the observations of fallen humanities vain imaginings. So be it, as each chooses according to their faith.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKqyo_e8pXw

The problems with conventional dating methods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iok7q8_e8H0

Natural selection is not at all what evolutionists have made it out to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LydPda6fB80

Why many scientists disregard the Bible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqr0aB8Trfg

Deep time theories regarding huge piles of Mammoth bones made by man. Since those of the deep time evolutionary faith do and will not consider theories relating to a young earth as YEC's believe, I'll take a stab at a YEC theory based upon that faith.

As the human family began to grow and disperse throughout the post-flood world, they encountered if not possibly searched out the remains of pre-flood plants and or animals destroyed by the event. In colder regions especially, these remains may have been well enough preserved even to eat. As not long ago, some scientists did in fact cook and eat Mammoth remains found even today.

It may have even been a matter of survival at times, for post-flood people, to survive upon the foods supplied by pre-flood remains prolifically scattered upon the surface or near surface of the planet. Especially in the colder or polar regions which developed as a result of the flood.

We know today that Elephants are excellent swimmers and have a natural buoyancy.

https://elephantguide.com/en/can-elephants-swim-they-even-swim-underwater/

As such, they may have survived the flood waters a lot longer than other animals. Their remains therefore being exposed on the surface or closer near the surface than the vast majority of other creatures destroyed by the flood. In the colder regions especially, post-flood humanity took advantage of these no doubt mass burial or mound sites of Mammoths, which would provide mass amounts of meat. As the video under examination determines as well.

The piles of bones they found simply being put there by those who lived near these massive and preserved food supplies. Being left as a memorial, and or simply piled remains near the place these found pre flood creatures were butchered for their meat and whatever might be used of their remains. Perhaps the sea shells and marine remains found in and among the piled bones were also found along with the mass graves or mounds of Mammoths as a natural result of the flood as well. As is often the case in many a fossil dig today as well, where a great variety including marine life are found together in fossil grave yards.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0GRC0Y2ZeI

Another video examining evidence interpreted according to deep time evolutionary faith. Which might as easily be interpreted according to much more recent events and theories associated with an ever growing number of those of the catastrophism mindset. Which is that many events once attributed to deep time are now attributed to rapid catastrophic events, even by deep time evolutionists.

Of course, YEC's have no need for deep time according to our faith. Global catastrophe was the cause of the vast majority of that which we observe regarding the past. This deep time faith video itself, even speaks of the same type of evidences being found and observed, which is only thousands of years old. Not to mention a tsunami event, or flood event being part of the theorized scenario as well. All of which fits perfectly of course with YEC views and observations.

As always, people will observe and speculate according to the faith they have already chosen regarding our past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5S2_s6Eqzs

Another good one from Answers in Genesis Canada, continuing part of a series. How the world was duped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6z-YZtiyx4

Answers in Genesis Canada. How a Biblical Worldview CRUSHES Racism (And Evolution Fuels It)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjKvQ8-kV00

Volcanoes in Space: Evidence for a Young Solar System?

The universe is about 13.8 billion years old, but how do we know that?

https://www.livescience.com/how-know-age-of-universe

Quote from: Alan on Tue Feb 04, 2025 - 07:43:07The universe is about 13.8 billion years old, but how do we know that?

https://www.livescience.com/how-know-age-of-universe

Interesting article. These are statements from it that are why I personally have trouble say... claiming that the earth is about the age that science says it is.

We can determine the age of the universe (to an extent)

Right now, the universe is thought to be around 13.8 billion years old.

By combining those data with existing models of how fast different types of matter and celestial objects would have appeared after everything began, scientists were able to estimate how far back that explosive birth of the universe happened.

Scientists think light from the CMB emerged 400,000 years after the Big Bang.

So, by measuring how far away such scattered light is, scientists get an estimate of how old the universe is.

Is it possible that the universe is even older? Maybe.

________________________

So they are comparing "light" plus.... through telescopes that are getting more and more advanced and with each one the earth gets older....

I dont buy it....

Now I do believe the earth is older then 6000 plus years old
that YEC believe. How much 

I just saw a video yesterday on the Ethiopian Church Bible... Very interesting and I should try to find it because they said that bible differs with ours and they also suggested their Genesis is not the same... though it is not called Genesis....

If I find that Ill post it.

Just a side note I just read.... and this should be in another thread but thought it fits here also...

https://www.wtae.com/article/how-an-ancient-asteroid-strike-carved-out-2-grand-canyons-on-moon/63666233?

How an ancient asteroid strike carved out 2 grand canyons on the moon

If this is so, then what about our own and others around the earth?

https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/dark-matter/heavy-dark-matter-would-rip-our-understanding-of-the-universe-apart-new-research-suggests

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis is mine.

Quote'Heavy' dark matter would rip our understanding of the universe apart, new research suggests

Because we haven't found anything yet, we've started to wonder if dark matter might be lighter or heavier than we thought.

Dark matter can't be too heavy or it might break our best model of the universe, new research suggests.

We have an abundance of evidence that something fishy is happening in the universe. Stars orbit within galaxies far too quickly. Galaxies move around inside clusters much too fast. Structures grow and evolve too rapidly. If we count only the matter we can see, there simply isn't enough gravity to explain all of these behaviors.

The vast majority of cosmologists believe all of these phenomena can be explained through the presence of dark matter, a hypothetical form of matter that is massive, electrically neutral and hardly, if ever, interacts with normal matter. This dark matter makes up most of the mass in the universe, far outweighing the amount of luminous matter.

The identity of dark matter remains a mystery, as experiments designed to detect a stray, rare collision have failed to turn up anything. But these experiments have focused on targeting a specific mass range: roughly 10 to 1,000 giga-electron volts (GeV). (A GeV is equivalent to 1 billion electron volts.) That's in the range of the heaviest known particles, like the W boson and the top quark. For decades, theorists favored this mass range because several simple extensions of the Standard Model of particle physics predicted the existence of such particles.

Because we haven't found anything yet, though, we've started to wonder if dark matter might be lighter or heavier than we thought. But heavier dark matter runs into some serious issues, according to a new paper published to the preprint database arXiv.

The problem is that dark matter does sometimes interact with normal matter, if only rarely. But in the early universe, when the cosmos was much hotter and denser, these interactions were much more frequent. Eventually, as the universe expanded and cooled, these interactions slowed and then stopped, leading the dark matter to "freeze out" and remain silent in the background.

While there are many, many models of potential dark matter candidates, many interact with regular particles through exchanges involving the Higgs boson — a fundamental particle that interacts with almost all other particles and, through those interactions, imbues those particles with mass.

We know the mass of the Higgs boson: around 125 GeV. The researchers found that this mass puts a fundamental upper limit on the possible mass of most dark matter candidates.

The problem is that all interactions in physics are two-way streets. The Higgs talks to both dark matter and regular matter and, in many models, mediates interactions between them. But both kinds of matter also talk back to the Higgs. These interactions appear as slight modifications to the Higgs boson's mass.

For Standard Model particles, we can calculate these corrections and feedback interactions, which is how theorists predicted the mass of the Higgs boson well before it was detected.

The researchers found that if the dark matter particle had a mass greater than a few thousand GeV, its contribution to the Higgs mass would be incredibly important, driving it away from its observed value. And because the Higgs is so central to determining many other fundamental physics, it would essentially shut down particle interactions altogether.

There are possibilities to get around this restriction, however. Dark matter might not interact with regular particles at all, or the interaction might happen through some exotic mechanism that doesn't involve the Higgs. But those models are few and far between and require a lot of fine-tuning and extra steps.

Or it could be that dark matter is lighter than we thought. If we don't think heavy dark matter is a viable candidate, then as we continue to learn about this mysterious component of the universe, we can instead focus our efforts in the other direction. There has already been a surge of interest in axions, ultralight particles that are predicted in some particle physics models and might be a viable dark matter candidate.

On the experimental side, if this result is confirmed and holds to be a widespread restriction on dark matter particle mass, we can refine and redesign our experiments to search for low-mass, instead of high-mass, particles.

Things simply are not behaving properly according to previous conceptions, based upon previous guess work or theories developed based upon that guess work. So guess work, upon guess work, upon guess work, upon guess work, amounts to absolute truths to countless deluded so called "scientists". All of whom believe this type of unending guess work by fallen, extremely limited humanity, equals some kind of "scientific" gospel truth. Well did and do the scriptures predict and speak of such among fallen humanity.

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaJSc0_7xsA

What do we really know?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0LpBMJKULc

Deep time evolution a preference of choice, not scientific fact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3ZmfgnpUdE

Exposing the lack of evidence for evolution. Parental guidance is of course necessary to viewing such critically damaging logic against the theory of evolution. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApFKNhZxP-E

Dinosaur bones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgWR5Dg3NvY

More soft tissue in dinosaur bones related news.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Feb 07, 2025 - 09:25:19Things simply are not behaving properly according to previous conceptions, based upon previous guess work or theories developed based upon that guess work. So guess work, upon guess work, upon guess work, upon guess work, amounts to absolute truths to countless deluded so called "scientists". All of whom believe this type of unending guess work by fallen, extremely limited humanity, equals some kind of "scientific" gospel truth. Well did and do the scriptures predict and speak of such among fallen humanity.

Amo, why do you continue to demonstrate your ignorance concerning nearly all things scientific? It really defeats your purpose of trying to support your young earth theology. Seriously, there is nothing more pitiful than the person trying to argue against something that they know absolutely nothing about.

I really don't think that Paul's message to Timothy In 2 Timothy 3:1-17 has anything whatsoever to do with your addled view of science and technology.

But if you insist on that application, there are many good solid faithful Christians who likely see it talking about you simply because you have failed to see what Paul is actually talking about.

The real "fallen, extremely limited humanity" in this discussion is you.

@ Amo,

Goodmorning:

I wonder if you are at all familiar with the Ethiopian Bible.

It has been said The Ethiopian Bible is one of the oldest versions of the Bible in existence. It contains several ancient texts that are not found in other versions, such as the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees. These texts are believed to have been written before the Christian era and provide valuable insights into the beliefs and practices of early Jewish and Christian communities. So, while the Ethiopian Bible is not the oldest version of the Bible overall, it does contain some of the oldest and most unique texts within the Biblical tradition.

It dates back to the 4th century.

Anyway, there is are copies you can find online with a search but also there is a copy in our library of congress translated into English. I have provided 2 sources. The second is in more book form that you can click and turn the pages to compare.

The one in the library of congress shows shots of specific pages with English explanation or translation below.

Because I have never mastered being able to copy shots of anything here... I can copy and past the writing below.

I have chosen several pages to copy here, and at the link  you can see what it is.

Because I know and actually understand your creation beliefs that all was done in 144 consecutive hours, and then God rested on the next day.... Just look and see what that country believes as is written in a book far older then say KJV.

https://www.loc.gov/resource/gdcmassbookdig.revelationofgene00roth/?st=gallery

Image 2 of Revelation of Genesis. "The lost ages." From Ethiopian manuscripts of an anonymous, in ...
Qass- Book. COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT

Image 5 of Revelation of Genesis. "The lost ages." From Ethiopian manuscripts of an anonymous, in ...
REVELATION OF GENESIS. THE LOST AGES. FROM ETHIOPIAN MANUSCRIPTS OF AN ANONYxMOUS, IN EIGHT VOLUxMES. TRANSLATED FROM AMHA^ IC IN ENGLISH BY FR;- ROT HER. FIRST VOLUME. CAMBRIDGE: THE HARVARD PRINTING CO.MPANY,...

Image 6 of Revelation of Genesis. "The lost ages." From Ethiopian manuscripts of an anonymous, in ...
BSi235 Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1890, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Image 11 of Revelation of Genesis. "The lost ages." From Ethiopian manuscripts of an anonymous, in ...
THE LOST AGES. 5 there was evening, and there was morning, a second eternity. On the face of heaven a great many firmaments were created that are far mightier than the firmament...

Image 12 of Revelation of Genesis. "The lost ages." From Ethiopian manuscripts of an anonymous, in ...6 REVELATION OF GENESIS. the earth, the dwelling of man, that it was good, even of the third eternity creation, bat that God saw how the second eteinity creation was good it...

Image 13 of Revelation of Genesis. "The lost ages." From Ethiopian manuscripts of an anonymous, in ...
THE LOST AGES. 7 it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning, fourth eternity. And God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moved, which the...

Image 15 of Revelation of Genesis. "The lost ages." From Ethiopian manuscripts of an anonymous, in ...
THE LOST AGES. ished; and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made, and he rested on the seventh day from all...

Image 16 of Revelation of Genesis. "The lost ages." From Ethiopian manuscripts of an anonymous, in ...
10 REVELATTON OF GENESIS. eternity until fourth eternity connectedly, and from fourth eternity until fifth eternity connectedly, and from fifth eternity until sixth eternity connectedly, and on the seventh eternity God rested...


In
https://archive.org/details/revelationofgene00roth/page/n5/mode/2up

you will see a book and if you click on either page it will turn and you will find reading them to be close to those above except for the first day this one does not say eternity but says "ONE DAY"  A little easier to read....

Anyway... these are fascinating and interesting.