dalaman:


You are a liar. The only God whose signature appears in nature is Allah. The one and only true God.

hopefulLandlord:


checkmate!!!!!

Proudgorgeousga:

vaxx:


Are you thinking islam?

OLAADEGBU:


Evolution is a lie and is not scientific. If you knew a little about science you would know about the "Golden Ratio."

OLAADEGBU:


They are for anything that will negate the Truth.

KingEbukasBlog:


Random chance does not disprove God or intelligent design in anyway. You can have a radical view that God knows the possible outcomes from any random event and that He designed the universe in a way that every random event can produce a desired outcome.

KingEbukasBlog:


Even computer programs can be designed like this . So random chance claimants ain't really making any serious argument .

KingEbukasBlog:


Secondly, an event can appear to an observer as random or chaotic but it is not perceived that same way to the person who initiated it. You might think we got everything by chance , but does God or every other observer see it that way ? So the issue of chaos and randomness producing intelligent design is subjective not objective.

ScepticalPyrrho:


Liar. The only one and true God is Mazda.

dalaman:



Be quiet pls. The only true God whose signature appears in nature is Allah. No other God has his name appear in nature but Allah the one and only true God.

felixomor:


He is confused.

KingEbukasBlog:


Lol . This is what happens when someone has a limited perspective of the issue . His argument is way off the point I was trying to make but I'm gona address it anyway . Allegorical interpretation of the bible is till congruent with tenets in Christianity . Evolution can be viewed as a process within creation - that God allowed the development of everything through the process of evolution . The literal interpretation of the bible is one of many numerous interpretations of the bible and the argument he is making is normally one which literal interpreters of the bible have against allegorical interpretation of the bible and is normally borrowed by atheists just the way they borrowed the theistic term 'God of the gaps' . Some Christians even interpret the bible literally but still do not agree to the 6000 year earth old claim by the YECs.

So yes my brother , evolution does not disrupt the harmony of the orthodox tenets of Christianity as he claimed . Allegorical interpretation of the bible has been with our early papas in church over 1500 years or so before Darwinian evolution .

But don't forget a non-Christian theist can still acknowledge evolution as process orchestrated by God .

4kings:


Your next statement answers this.

There it is...

My comment was based off topic... Oops

Well OP being a young earth creationist is a special case...
But not all "Christians" are...
The Gnostics for example treat most biblical accounts as symbols for esoteric understanding, including Abraham, the Exodus and so on...
"Jesus" to them is an embodiment of knowledge don't want to go into details, I discussed this with KingEbukasBlog last year.
So your interpretation of the Bible and evolution does not change the value "Jesus" is to them, unless you are talking to a Christian fundamentalist.
Even the Catholic does not acknowledge the literal account of the book of Genesis(though this is another issue but hope you get my point).

dalaman:


Your evidence to show that the universe is 6000 years old is what?

hopefulLandlord:


you copped out and projected it on me lol, you're such a clown

dalaman:


Where is your scientific evidence to show that he universe is 6000 years old? Or do you now acknowledge that you've been telling lies all the time?

dalaman:


I don't care about evolution. All I know is that the only God whose signature appears in nature is Allah.

dalaman:


Which truth?

OLAADEGBU:


My brother, I know that every Word in the Bible is not to be taken as literal. We have Metaphors, Similes, Poetries, Proverbs and other figures of speech but it also contains historical events and the Genesis record of Creation is an historical event, it cannot be spiritualised away.

If you say Adam was a mythical figure who never really lived then what you are saying essentially is that all his children and descendants including our Lord Jesus Christ, descended from a myth.

OLAADEGBU:


I can show you the evidence but will you believe it if I do?

OLAADEGBU:


Being an Old earth creationist may not take away from your salvation but it denies their followers from taking the Bible as their final authority.

4kings:


Maybe in some cases, but i think it's more of given a new interpretation of what's written to be compatible with reason.

OLAADEGBU:


It is an indirect salvation issue as well as an authority issue. Faulty fallible human interpretations vs God's final authority.

OLAADEGBU:


It is an indirect salvation issue as well as an authority issue. Faulty fallible human interpretations vs God's final authority.

KingEbukasBlog:


Hmmm . Good point bro. But an allegorical view of the creation story does not mean that Adam as a man is mythical .

When I have a stable network , I'll post like three allegorical views of the creation story for you to decide

4kings:

Interesting, what are the views?

KingEbukasBlog:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

dalaman:


Scientificevidence that shows the universe is 6000 years old is what you said youll provide m where is it? Or were you lying as always?

4kings:


Well your God's final authority is wrong.
The world has been in existence longer than 6000 years and it is mathematically impossible for Noah's four sons to produce 6 billion people in less than 5000 years.
Please don't be too dogmatic.

OLAADEGBU:


"Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His Words, lest He reprove theem, and thou be found a liar" (Proverbs 30:5-6).

It is an indirect salvation issue as well as an authority issue. Claiming millions of years for the age of the earth is an authority issue especially for the generation coming behind us. There's no point explaining questions to them outside of the Bible.

See the link below and find out how it is mathematically possible "for Noah's four sons to produce 6 billion people in less than 5000 years."

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/

Evidence 5 Anthropology: Human Population Growth
It’s amazing what basic mathematics can show us about the age of the earth. We can calculate the years of human existence with the population doubling every 150 years (a very conservative figure) to get an estimate of what the world’s population should be after any given period of time.

A biblical age of the earth (about 6,000 years) is consistent with the numbers yielded by such a calculation. In contrast, even a conservative evolutionary age of 50,000 years comes out to a staggering, impossibly high figure of 10 to the 99th power—greater than the number of atoms in the universe!

Clearly, the claim that humans have inhabited the earth for tens of thousands of years is absurd!

4kings:



I believe this is what you're talking about:

Can you make sense outta this?

And on dating, you do realise that all other radiometric datings point to a universe older than 6000 years and using Rhenium–osmium dating diamonds are still older than what your link postulated.

OLAADEGBU:


Let's stick for now on how "we can calculate the years of human existence with the population doubling every 150 years." Do you agree with this calculation?

4kings:


Can't you see the explanation is vague.
What's the starting population for their calculation? and how did they determine the population would double every 150 years, considering wars, famine, ugly women and so on.