How can ECs call themselves Christians?

Here are the cross references for Psalm 104. Might i suggest that you need some theological instruction here as you clearly do not understand the point of Psalm 104 at all!!!

1 Samuel 2:8
He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap. He seats them among princes and bestows on them a throne of honor. For the foundations of the earth are the LORD’s, and upon them He has set the world.

Job 38:4
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.

Psalm 24:2
For He has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters.

Psalm 90:2
Before the mountains were born or You brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting You are God.

Proverbs 8:29
when He set a boundary for the sea, so that the waters would not surpass His command, when He marked out the foundations of the earth.

Ecclesiastes 1:4
Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever.

Micah 6:2
Hear, O mountains, the LORD’s indictment, you enduring foundations of the earth. For the LORD has a case against His people, and He will argue it against Israel:

Treasury of Scripture

Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

who laid the foundations of the earth.

Psalm 24:2
For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.

Psalm 33:9
For he spake, and it was done ; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Psalm 136:6
To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.

that is

Psalm 93:1
The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Psalm 96:10
Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Ecclesiastes 1:4
One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

Backatcha. I didn’t quote, @beaglelady did and I cited. [content removed by moderator] You have also failed to address the girdled rocks and extinct radioactive nuclides.

Hi Dale, the nuclides are an interesting one…may i ask a couple of questions just for the sake of ensuring we are on the same page…

(this forum engine appears to have dns and caching issues at present…its having problems distinguishing between my posts so i have to put some nonsense in the middle here to overcome that problem)

Ok so back to the response i have for you…

how were the missing nuclides discovered?
what is their origin?

Answer about the girdled rocks and then I’ll take the time to address the extinct nuclides.

1 Like

Backatcha. Again. Psalm 104 is a Creation Psalm. If death was evil before the fall, why isn’t it evil after? Because in any case, the psalmist is praising God for providing prey for lions.

1 Like

And that it would destroy every composite particle, among other things.

1 Like

If we tweak let say +/- 1%, the ratio between Gravitational Constant, G and electrostatic constant, k (which contains the vacuum permittivity and vacuum permeability) the universe as we know it may collapse or the laws of physics must become radically different, many laws of physics must be recalibrated.

If we multiply or divide the constants by 2x, the universe might even shrink that light may accumulate or trapped in space time.

We can’t, so far, tweak these constants because they’re very consistent. The speed of light, C (which also contains the vacuum permittivity and vacuum permeability) has been very consistent and very constant, and so is the Gravitational Constant, G.

The fact is: we can’t tweak them and even in simulation when C is multiplied 2x, the laws of physics will become inconsistent and indeterminate.

I do think the universe, as we know it, is fine-tuned.

1 Like

Which ironically, would decrease decay rates.

2 Likes

Dale did it for me. There are others. So does the earth really move (rotate, etc) or not?

And btw, did Adam and Eve have bellly buttons, since they were never born? And did they ever have baby teeth?

1 Like

I do too, but I don’t think it is a scientific argument. But I like this, a fine tuning self-selection effect rebuttal:

www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Unbelievable-blog/What-s-stopping-Roger-Penrose-from-believing-that-God-created-the-Universe

2 Likes

You have just referenced a pile of verses which in plain and simple language depicts the earth firmly upon steadfast and immobile foundation.

Unless you take the Bible as 100% fact and then accept a flat and unmoving earth, then I’m sorry but you are lost!

3 Likes

Excuse me? Does this look “flat” to you?

1 Like

No what i have done is refence a pile of verses that come straight out of the bible commentary that give you the meaning of the passage of scripture in Psalms 104.

Your claim is that Psalm 104 is talking about the earth being built onto a pedastool. That is absolutely not what the Psalm is about. It is NOT saying the earth is the center of the physcial universe, it is not saying that the earth is a stationary object…it is not even talking about these things. That is not what the Psalm is about in any way shape or form.

if you truly understood the theology, you would not make ridiculous claims that are in fact contrary to the meaning of the text!

The problem here is that someone gave you a naysayer wives tail argument, that someone being an evolutionary scientist, you took upon their argument without first examining whether or not their argument is in fact contrary to the very theology of the passages of scripture it came from…that is a foolish position to take.

This is the entire problem with theistic evolution…it first says, “the science is accurate, the bible is wrong”.
Due to the outcry this caused in the religious movement, that statement has now been updated to read “the science is right, its our understanding of the scriptures that is wrong”

Then theistic evolution attempts to weld together dissimilar metals thus creating a construct that sees so many conflicting errors in its theology that thousands of years of study and research see this movement alienated…neither side agree with this movement. Now many would think that taking the middle road is the safe option…however, i think John wrote fairly plainly in Revelation that Laodocia would be spewed out of his mouth because it was neither hot nor cold but luke warm (so there are caveats to the middle of the road view)

God expects us to follow his word…actually i have an interesting quote to insert right here from Dr Kurt Wise

Finally, one day in my sophomore year of high school, when I thought I could stand it no longer, I determined to resolve the issue. After lights were out, under my covers with flashlight in hand I took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and set to work. Beginning at Genesis 1:1, I determined to cut out every verse in the Bible which would have to be taken out to believe in evolution…

being careful not to cut the margin of the page, but to poke the page in the midst of the verse and cut the verse out around that.

night after night, for weeks and months, I set about the task of systematically going through the entire Bible from cover to cover.

With the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two.

I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible.

God began to show me that the rejection of evolution does not necessarily involve the rejection of all of science. In fact, I have come to learn that science owes its very existence and rationale to the claims of Scripture.

the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis (e.g., the order of creation, the distinctness of created kinds, the absence of pre-Fall carnivory, the lack of higher animal death before the Fall, the creation of Adam and Eve, the “very good” status of the creation at the end of the Creation Week, the great longevities of the patriarchs, the global nature of the Noahic Flood, the dispersion of people away from the Tower of Babel).

This in turn challenges the integrity of any concept built upon these chapters. Yet, it is my understanding that every doctrine of Christianity stands upon the foundation laid in the first few chapters of Genesis (e.g., God is truth, God is a God of mercy and love, Scripture is true, all natural and moral evil on the earth can be traced back to man’s Fall, Christ’s return is global, Heaven is a perfect place with no sin or death or corruption of any sort). Thus, an earth that is millions of years old seems to challenge all the doctrines I hold dear.

No, that is not what is being claimed. What is being claimed is that you are not using the literal ‘plain’ reading, exactly like YECs insist for Genesis 1. It seems you are diverting attention from the real question with verbosity.
 

Now, about the psalmist praising God for animal death. (And regarding the girdled rocks?)

3 Likes

other models exist as well:

1 Like

Question: Has any St. Ronald afficionado read his essay, “Aggressors, Victims, and Peacemakers: Historical Actors in the Drama of Science and Religion”, in The Religion and Science Debate: Why Does It Continue? (The Terry Lectures Series) Paperback – Illustrated, September 1, 2009 or the book that it was included in?

no that is not what is being claimed.

the effort here is an attempt to twist scripture such that its very interpretation conflicts with itself and the reality around us. That is completely false and its based on the white lie concerning this Psalm (go back and read the original post that made the claim).

I find it interesting how those who would twist the truth of the scripture conveniently ignore obvious theological mistakes in order to support false theories…its absurd.

It appears to me that you are now making the claim that everything in the bible is either literal or it isnt…you yourself dont even believe that, so why make the claim? Its a circular nonsense argument bordering on insulting ones intelligence!

Look i have spent a lot of time in building and construction over the years, everyone in the industry knows that if one stuffs up the foundation of the house, the rest of the project becomes very problematic…things only get worse. The very essence of a building relies heavily on the groundwork.

Now here’s the thing, the foundation of the bible and all of its subsequent theology rest on the first few chapters of Genesis. This book explains our reality as we experience it today (ie why we have weeds, why there is death etc). Now the stupid part of theistic evolutionary theology is that it appears to put forward the very strong case that there is no need for salvation from physical death or sin.

Now here is the problem with that proposition…Jesus existed physically, he had physical disciples whom history has absolutely irrefutably proven really existed in the flesh…these are real people who were first hand witnesses to Christ’s life on earth. Jesus then died a very physical death on the cross.

It is theologically impossible i think, to reconcile the issues theistic evolutionist face in claiming that the introduction of sin and therefore death (which the bible categorically claims is the wages of sin) are only spiritual events. The very fact that Jesus physically existed and physically died for sin (the wages of death) is in complete harmony with the text of Genesis Chapter 3! I do not see how anyone who is even half intelligent can ignore that fundamental fact…its irrefutable bible truth. To deny it is to say the bible is wrong…period!!

So one then is left with the choice:

  1. either the bible is wrong and evolution presents the only answer to our reality…along with the big bang (at least the current theory anyway)
  2. The bible is right and secular science is fundamentally flawed in its interpretations (cue Dr Kurt Wise)

These verses can be read straight out of the Bible.

No, I said “foundation”, and “immobile”, because Psalm 104:4 says

He set the earth on its foundations;
it can never be moved.

The most essential thing about a foundation is that it not move. What part of this plain and simple verse are you trying to reinterpret - “foundation”, or “it can never be moved”?

are you trying to play games or make a valid point here? Most scholars would roll their eyes at the complete stupidity of your argument!

You can’t see the enormous irony in that. Maybe you could if you could understand about girdled rocks, praising God for animal death, extinct radio nuclides, and… there are more than a few other things, too.
 

How about the age of islands? This is pretty easy to grasp (and should be compelling):

2 Likes