Discussion about Jesus’s death which now encompasses creationism and the second coming. Thread 2

There’s ’some bias’ and then there’s a website dedicated to a young earth creationist perspective that looks at data through than lens as a starting point.

They also say things like the following:

“There is no dual citizenship in Christ. A Christian cannot have one foot in the world (embracing a gay identity) and one foot in the church.”

“First, we must starve sin. This means we must not cultivate gay friendships, live in gay culture, call ourselves gay Christians, or engage in sin of any kind that fuels and feeds our affinity for homosexuality.”

And they say the following about a 10 year old rape victim’s abortion:

”Is abortion justified in cases like these?
The value of a life is not determined based on how that life was conceived.No! Again, the value of a life is not determined based on how that life was conceived. And, as above, the child should not pay for the sins of the father. Sexual abuse is a great evil—sexual abuse at the hands of a family member or other trusted person is even more repulsive. These are circumstances no one wants, and the guilty party should be fully prosecuted for their crimes. But, again, the unborn child is guilty of nothing more than existing, and that’s certainly not a reason to end someone’s life!”

Not sure I would be quoting that site as an unbiased authority on anything to be honest. They sound like cruel, homophobic, misogynistic types to me. I wouldn’t want to align myself with them in any way but appreciate you may share their views while I don’t.

It's not only Answers in Genesis
creation.com/en/articles/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating

No, but most sources have some bias. It doesn't mean what they are saying isn't true

Why? They have scientists working for them

Do you believe that to be an unbiased source?

Answers in Genesis isn't accurate.

There were otherwise smart people who are convinced that the Cottingley Fairies were real. There are many people who believe that the Angel Moroni supplied golden books to Joseph Smith. There are millions that believe Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse. Lots of people believe all sorts of things.

The best process we've found to work out which beliefs are true is science. And evolution is a branch of science that has an immense amount of evidence to support it regardless of what the charlatans at Answers in Genesis want you to think.

Radiometric dating isn't accurate
answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/

Those are nonsensical questions based on a massively flawed understanding of evolution. It's like a flat-earther saying that the earth couldn't be round because then people in Australia would fall off.

If you want me to recommend some good books about evolution just ask.

But science shows that many have take millions of years to form. Radiometric dating proves that to be the case. Do you believe that scientists who honed the technique of radiometric dating have got it that wrong?

Actually there are people who have become Christians as a result of studying science because they realise the evidence points to the existence of God and is the most credible explanation for our whole existence

You can choose to interpret findings a different way if you choose. But there is plenty of scientific evidence to back up the Biblical position. I studied the theory of evolution at GCSE and A level and it is a theory used to explanation certain scientific discoveries. The same discoveries can be explained by having a creator God. It's not a valid argument to say that if someone disagrees with the theory of evolution they are not scientific. I know a Cambridge professor who believes in young earth and a six day creation, and a science professor at Leeds university who believes the same. These are educated men, it's unfair to portray creationists as people who are a bit thick and don't understand science

Then why do we have fossils of creatures which still exist? There are massive gaps in the fossil record if evolution is real. There aren't any creatures that are starting to evolve certain features, they either have them or they don't.

It’s one example of many. I’m not here to go over the syllabus of what is basic education for GCSE science students to those who chose to ignore it at the time.

I’m happy for you to not believe in evolution, if it fits with your religious beliefs. But please don’t present your extreme minority view as a credible science based statement of fact.

All fossils are of "intermediate" stages. All of them. Because evolution is continuous.

If you don't understand that you really ought to get your information about evolution from people who know about it rather than from people who lie about it because science doesn't agree with their favourite book.

answersingenesis.org/extinct-animals/tiktaalik-and-the-fishy-story-of-walking-fish/

So the only evidence for evolution between species is a creature that has characteristics of fish and amphibians? That's not enough to convince me

Yes, fossils are real but they didn't take millions of years to form. One species cannot change into another

Firstly, reframing the definition of evolution to suit the answer you want isn't the most scientific apporach to life. But, not withstanding that there is plenty of evidence of the evolution of one species into another, in the form of fossils.

But, it takes thousands of years (which I realise is inconvenient for those that believe the earth was only created a few thousand years ago).

Lets look at the fossil record of the transition from fish to tetrapods for example, which includes the fossil Tiktaalik which has features of both fish and early amphibians. Now, this was around 400 million years ago, which I am sure you will have issue with...

I think there's been some misunderstanding of my belief on evolution. I fully accept that evolution happens within species- there is plenty of evidence for that. What I don't believe in, and have seen no evidence for, is that one species can evolve into a completely different species.

Of course evolution takes place in bacteria and viruses. Micro evolution is something I believe in as there is evidence for it. There is no evidence of one species evolving to a completely different species

But those examples are examples of evolution within a species, which I absolutely agree happens. But there is no proof of the evolution of one species to another

@KeepHopeful I don’t know whether you will be on this new thread but you say Jesus one day will return. What form will he take?