What Do Reformed Christians Believe?

Well then what can you prove?




Just how do we account for the universe in which we live? A lot of people do not realize that there are a very limited number of explanations for the existence of the universe. The first explanation is commonly referred to as a form of solipsism or the concept that the universe in which we live is merely an illusion. Now to argue that the world is an illusion violates common sense and experience (even a full blown solipsist looks both ways before he crosses the street).

A second possibility is that the world created itself. This is irrational in the extreme. For something to create itself, it would have to exist before it was created, and that’s absurd. Something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way (the law of noncontradiction).

A third possibility is that the universe sprang from nothing and by nothing. This, however, is also irrational. Out of nothing comes nothing and an effect can’t be greater than its cause — and in this case the cause would be nothing. One of the basic laws of physics, the law of conservation says, “from nothing, comes nothing.” Energy can neither be created or destroyed.

The fourth possibility is that the universe is eternal. This view directly contradicts the facts of science which teach that the universe had a specific beginning and that the world is now gradually running down (like a watch).

Well, there’s one more possibility and this is that the universe was brought into existence by an incredibly powerful Being. And, because this Being created personality, He Himself, is a personal Being. Now here’s what I would say: the most rational thing we can say in an age of scientific enlightenment is exactly what the Bible teaches: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). Ultimately the biblical explanation for the universe is the only rational alternative, there are no others.


EVIDENCE FOR CREATION?



The idea that God created the world and life is often thought to have been disproved by evolutionary theory. Is there any scientific evidence for creation?

The truth is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports creation. Let me attempt to point out just some of this evidence here. First, the scientific community is now almost unanimous in affirming that the universe had a beginning. This is usually referred to in scientific terms as “The Big Bang Theory.” Of course, this implies that someone or something brought the universe into existence.

Secondly, the universe bears all the marks of having been “finely tuned” to make life possible. For example, the elementary forces of gravity, electromagnetism, and the atom are precisely what they need to be. The earth’s size, distance from the sun, rotational period, composition, and many other factors are all just right. The chances of there being even one planet where all of these factors converge by accident are very slim indeed.

Thirdly, the evidence is mounting that life on earth simply could not and did not come into existence through natural processes in a primordial “soup.” For example, the experiments to prove that it could have happened are suspect because little progress has been made possible due to the ingenious designs on the part of experimenters.

Fourthly, the genetic code of all biological life on earth contains evidence of intelligent design. This is because the genetic code contains information comparable to the information in complex computer programs as well as information in books.

Fifthly, the fossil record continues to be an embarrassment to the Darwinian theory of evolution. The many transitional forms which Darwin predicted would be found simply have not surfaced. This fact has forced evolutionists to modify Darwin’s Theory, often in absurd ways. In short, it is the theory of naturalistic evolution which is in serious trouble scientifically today, while the Biblical teaching of creation never looked better.

 

I can prove scientifically how and why - if you walk into Starbucks with me and I open the door but you BELIEVE you can walk through the closed one by the Grace of God , - you break your nose. Prove also scientifically, how and why, when we both go to sit at the counter where there are no stools, although you BELIEVE the Almighty will support your ass in mid air and proceed to sit, you end up on the floor.

But I suspect you know all manner of things that are proven by science, being established beyond doubt through applying science and the scientific method. Its just that you will suspend every last bit of that to say science can't prove anything , when you want to BELIEVE. God proves everything.

I can prove to my gramma why television works. But I can ONLY do so scientifically because she BELIEVES it doesn't and it is against all that is sacred to God's nature to mess up the ether in that way.


What does science actually tell us about …
Everything that can be proven.

What does Religion/Bible actually tell us about …
Nothing that can be proven

 

you are playing games. I told you this in the past. But for background. I go to a Catholic Church because I see no point in being Christian if you can't take Jesus at his word when he says it many times, and then those words are supported in Corinthians. Catholics do not read the bible as a fundamentilist does. However, I have been intrigued by the writings of guys like chuck missler, who is no, dope and seems to argue well for the bible as the literal word of God.

But all this is irrelvent. You made the claim that you can prove the bible wrong via the flood story. Now prove it. Take the exact words of the bible and prove them wrong.

Go for it. Stop playing games.

 

I asked you a specific set of questions that you have avoided answereing.

Do I need to repeat the question?

What does science tell us of the origen of the universe?

What is the purpose of the universe?

What is the origen of life on this planet?

What is the origen of the major animal groups called phyla?

What is the origen of the development of intelligence?

You said that everything i.e. (the above questions I presume) can be proven?

Prove it!


Just how do we account for the universe in which we live? A lot of people do not realize that there are a very limited number of explanations for the existence of the universe. The first explanation is commonly referred to as a form of solipsism or the concept that the universe in which we live is merely an illusion. Now to argue that the world is an illusion violates common sense and experience (even a full blown solipsist looks both ways before he crosses the street).

A second possibility is that the world created itself. This is irrational in the extreme. For something to create itself, it would have to exist before it was created, and that’s absurd. Something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way (the law of noncontradiction).

A third possibility is that the universe sprang from nothing and by nothing. This, however, is also irrational. Out of nothing comes nothing and an effect can’t be greater than its cause — and in this case the cause would be nothing. One of the basic laws of physics, the law of conservation says, “from nothing, comes nothing.” Energy can neither be created or destroyed.

The fourth possibility is that the universe is eternal. This view directly contradicts the facts of science which teach that the universe had a specific beginning and that the world is now gradually running down (like a watch).

Well, there’s one more possibility and this is that the universe was brought into existence by an incredibly powerful Being. And, because this Being created personality, He Himself, is a personal Being. Now here’s what I would say: the most rational thing we can say in an age of scientific enlightenment is exactly what the Bible teaches: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). Ultimately the biblical explanation for the universe is the only rational alternative, there are no others.


EVIDENCE FOR CREATION?



The idea that God created the world and life is often thought to have been disproved by evolutionary theory. Is there any scientific evidence for creation?

The truth is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports creation. Let me attempt to point out just some of this evidence here. First, the scientific community is now almost unanimous in affirming that the universe had a beginning. This is usually referred to in scientific terms as “The Big Bang Theory.” Of course, this implies that someone or something brought the universe into existence.

Secondly, the universe bears all the marks of having been “finely tuned” to make life possible. For example, the elementary forces of gravity, electromagnetism, and the atom are precisely what they need to be. The earth’s size, distance from the sun, rotational period, composition, and many other factors are all just right. The chances of there being even one planet where all of these factors converge by accident are very slim indeed.

Thirdly, the evidence is mounting that life on earth simply could not and did not come into existence through natural processes in a primordial “soup.” For example, the experiments to prove that it could have happened are suspect because little progress has been made possible due to the ingenious designs on the part of experimenters.

Fourthly, the genetic code of all biological life on earth contains evidence of intelligent design. This is because the genetic code contains information comparable to the information in complex computer programs as well as information in books.

Fifthly, the fossil record continues to be an embarrassment to the Darwinian theory of evolution. The many transitional forms which Darwin predicted would be found simply have not surfaced. This fact has forced evolutionists to modify Darwin’s Theory, often in absurd ways. In short, it is the theory of naturalistic evolution which is in serious trouble scientifically today, while the Biblical teaching of creation never looked better.


TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT



Watches, machines, computers — all examples of intelligent design. And like them, the universe also exhibits evidences of intelligent design. Well is this proof of a Cosmic Designer?



The argument known as the “argument from design” (teleological) reasons that evidence for complexity and purpose in the universe points to a cosmic designer. Well, is this a good argument or not?



Let’s look at the human brain. Scientists have called the human brain the most complex mechanism in the known universe. The brain contains at least enough information to fill 20 million volumes. And then, of course, there’s the DNA molecule, it exhibits astounding evidence of design. A single DNA molecule is estimated to carry as much information as one large volume of the encyclopedia.



How do we know that the brain and the DNA molecule didn’t just happen by chance? First of all, chance doesn’t create. The probability that the brain or DNA molecule would arise by natural forces alone is truly incredible. If you doubt this, remember that the probability of forming a simple protein molecule by random processes would take somewhere in the vicinity of 10257 power years. If you’re not a mathematician, that would be one with 257 zeros behind it, a number which is incredibly large. Forming a simple cell by random processes would take around 10119,000. That is a number so large it’s incomprehensible. Of course, scientists such as A.E. Wilder-Smith and others have argued persuasively that the Darwinian theory of matter, energy, and time combining to produce life is not only improbable, it is indeed impossible. Life can only emerge when there’s a code and this code has to come from an intelligent creator.



The more we learn, the more we have to echo the words of the psalmist who wrote: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands (Psa. 19).


The above facts must be difficult for you to deal with so you have decided to avoid the issue altogether.

Let's start off by dealing with the above arguments.

Can you answer them?

 

stu,

Ya always impressed me as a great scientist.
Keep on proving,
nono

 

i am still waiting for you to tell me where in the earths geology we see evidence of a flood. so far you are unable or afraid to even try. could it be that you have never even thought about learning the truth of what you believe? so typical.
i guess that is why religious people are always told they must take what the bible says on faith. because it will not stand up to scrutiny. as soon as you tell me what layer of the earth was part of the global flood we can procede to examine the evidence. if you cant or will not after i have asked you many times i will consider that you forfeit the debate.

 

gee thanks noonoo
you always impressed me as one who would know.

 

we do not have all of the answers yet so therefore god did it? isn't that how primitive man felt when he thought that thunder and lightening were god speaking and that demons caused diseases?
as science answers more and more of the why and how questions there is less and less need for "god did it" answers.

 

this is simply a bald faced lie. there has never been a fossil found outside the layer of the geologic column where it would be predicted to by the theory of evolution.
the amazing thing about darwins ideas is that over a hundred years after he wrote them down nothing has ever been found that proves them wrong even though christians have tried every trick in the book to discredit darwin who was a christian himself.

 

The River systems of our world have not existed more than 5000 years. By dividing the size (volume) of a river delta by the volume of the annual soil deposits at the river mouths, none of the worlds rivers can be more than 5000 years old The Mississippi Missouri river system is the longest in the world, about 4221 miles. It was first surveyed between 1850-1861 by General Andrew A Humphreys of the Army corps of Engineers.His finding was that the accumilated soil deposits of the river delta was about 40 feet deep , giveing the river an age of about 4620 years, about the time of Noahs flood. The compare able size of the deltas of all other rivers in the world show that they also began at this time. Truely, a person has to be willfully ignorant to ignore this evidence.


Why Christians Should Believe in a Global Flood


"The LORD sitteth upon the flood; yea, the LORD sitteth King for ever" (Psalm 29:10).

The Biblical Flood in the days of Noah has become a great divide between two watersheds of belief. On the one hand there are those who say it is either a purely mythological event or else possibly a local or regional flood. This group includes practically all evolutionists, but it also includes the "old-earth creationists."

These all accept the so-called geological ages as the approved record of Earth history, recognizing that a global hydraulic cataclysm would have destroyed any evidence for such geological ages. The geological ages concept and a worldwide devastating Flood logically cannot coexist.

On the other hand, "young-earth creationists" accept the Biblical record of the Flood as a literal record of a tremendous cataclysm involving not only a worldwide Flood, but also great tectonic upheavals and volcanic outpourings that completely changed the crust of the earth and its topography in the days of Noah.

Those of us who hold this view are commonly ridiculed as unscientific and worse, so it would be more comfortable and financially rewarding if we would just go along with the evolutionary establishment, downgrade the Flood, and accept the geological ages.

But this we cannot do for a number of, what seem to us, compelling reasons.


Biblical Reasons

A few of the many Biblical reasons for believing in the global Flood are briefly summarized below. For those who believe in the Bible as the inerrant word of God, these should be sufficient.

Jesus Christ believed the Old Testament record of the worldwide Flood. Speaking of the antediluvian population, He said: "The flood came, and took them all away" (Matthew 24:39). Evolutionary anthropologists are all convinced that people had spread over the entire Earth by the time assigned to Noah in Biblical chronology, so an anthropologically universal Flood would clearly have required a geographically worldwide Flood.

The apostle Peter believed in a worldwide hydraulic cataclysm. "Whereby the world [Greek, kosmos] that then was, being overflowed [Greek, katakluzo] with water, perished" (II Peter 3:6). The "world" was defined in the previous verse as "the heavens . . . and the earth." Peter also said that "God . . . spared not the old world, but saved Noah . . . bringing in the flood [Greek, kataklusmos] upon the world of the ungodly" (II Peter 2:5). Note also that these words katakluzo and kataklusmos (from which we derive our English word "cataclysm") are applied exclusively in the New Testament to the great Flood of Noah's day.

The Old Testament record of the Flood, which both Christ and Peter accepted as real history, clearly teaches a global Flood. Therefore, it seems to us that Christians, professing to believe in Christ and follow Him, can do no less. For example, the record emphasizes that "all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven . . . and the mountains were covered" (Genesis 7:19,20) with the waters of the Flood. This must have included Mount Ararat on which Noah's Ark landed, and which is now 17,000 feet high. This was no local flood!
Since "all flesh died that moved upon the earth . . . all that was in the dry land" (Genesis 7:21,22), Noah and his sons had to build a huge Ark to preserve animal life for the post-diluvian world—an Ark that can easily be shown to have had more than ample capacity to carry at least two of every known species of land animal (marine animals were not involved, of course). Such an ark was absurdly unnecessary for anything but a global Flood.
God promised that never "shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth" (Genesis 9:11), and He has kept His word for over four thousand years, if the Flood indeed was global. Those Christians who say it was a local flood, however, are in effect accusing God of lying, for there are many devastating local floods every year.

Scientific Reasons

The earth's surface and sedimentary crust also bear strong witness to the historicity of a worldwide Flood, and the early geologists (Steno, Woodward, etc.) taught this. Most modern geologists have argued, on the other hand, that the earth's crust was formed slowly over billions of years. Yes, but consider the following significant facts.

All the mountains of the world have been under water at some time or times in the past, as indicated by sedimentary rocks and marine fossils near their summits. Even most volcanic mountains with their pillow lavas seem largely to have been formed when under water.

Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks (sandstones, shales, limestones, etc.). These were originally formed in almost all cases under water, usually by deposition after transportation by water from various sources.
The assigned "ages" of the sedimentary beds (which comprise the bulk of the "geologic column") have been deduced from their assemblages of fossils. Fossils, however, normally require very rapid burial and compaction to be preserved at all. Thus every sedimentary formation appears to have been formed rapidly—even catastrophically—and more and more present-day geologists are returning to this point of view.
Since there is known to be a global continuity of sedimentary formations in the geologic column (that is, there is no worldwide "unconformity," or time gap, between successive "ages"), and since each unit was formed rapidly, the entire geologic column seems to be the product of continuous rapid deposition of sediments, comprising in effect the geological record of a time when "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."

It is also significant that the types of rocks, the vast extent of specific sedimentary rock formations, the minerals and metals, coal and oil found in rocks, the various types of structures (i.e., faults, folds, thrusts, etc.), sedimentary rocks grossly deformed while still soft from recent deposition, and numerous other features seem to occur indiscriminately throughout the various "ages" supposedly represented in the column. To all outward appearances, therefore, they were all formed in essentially the same brief time period.

The fossil sequences in the sedimentary rocks do not constitute a legitimate exception to this rule, for there is a flagrant circular reasoning process involved in using them to identify their supposed geologic age. That is, the fossils have been dated by the rocks where they are found, which in turn had been dated by their imbedded fossils with the sequences based on their relative assumed stages of evolution, which had ultimately been based on the ancient philosophy of the "great chain of being." Instead of representing the evolution of life over many ages, the fossils really speak of the destruction of life (remember that fossils are dead things, catastrophically buried for preservation) in one age, with their actual local "sequences" having been determined by the ecological communities in which they were living at the time of burial.

The fact that there are traditions of the great Flood found in hundreds of tribes in all parts of the world (all similar in one way or another to that in the Genesis record) is firm evidence that those tribes all originated from the one family preserved through the cataclysm.


One can understand why atheistic and pantheistic evolutionists have to interpret Earth history in terms of great ages and evolution, rather than Creation and the Flood. They really have no other choice, once they have decided to reject the God of Creation and His record in the Bible. However, it is very difficult to understand why men and women who do believe in God and His word do this. The Bible is explicitly clear on the global Deluge, and sound scientific evidence supports it.

But this position does mean that the geological ages could never have happened, and too many establishment-oriented Christians are not yet willing to take such a stand. And that's rather sad in these last critical days.

BTW, you still have not answered my previous post either?

What say ye?