(January 29, 2014 at 7:49 am)pocaracas Wrote:(January 29, 2014 at 3:25 am)Carnavon Wrote: Sorry for the delay in responding.I know we all look alike, but it wasn't me who claimed that...
I am only responding to your claim "There are entire fields of science that have put paid to any possible idea that Genesis happened." .

(January 29, 2014 at 7:49 am)pocaracas Wrote:That is the exact point - the theory does not tie up with reality. Apart from that, a really substantial amount of information is necessary for a cell to function. This huge amount of information just appeared and exactly right to "create" this organism? This is not logical, not experimentally verified and statistically exceeding "no chance".(January 29, 2014 at 3:25 am)Carnavon Wrote: What I would agree with is that entire fields of theoretical science have put paid that Genesis happened - such as the field of macro evolution. But when we get to the "practicalities", it has some severe limitations - such as the fact that no organism has ever been created from inorganic material, despite some serious efforts.Well, I don't know.
While we are on the subject (and to let you off the hook), on what basis do you believe/know that living material (i.e "simple"
organisms) developed from non-living material?
But it seems to be the only option available.
Somehow, through a series of events, carbon must have bonded with hydrogen and oxygen, forming carbohydrates (stuff that happens routinely, even today), which then bonded to form proteins and amino-acids and those bonded to form the first self-replicating chains of amino-acids, and thus... life.
It's this last step that science hasn't managed to replicate yet...
Even if they do manage to create self-replicating amino-acids chains... what will prevent anyone from saying "yeah, it's possible to do it like that, but who's to say it really happened like that?"
With them having solved all the issues, I would like to have a pair of wings - traffic congestion is killing me

(January 29, 2014 at 7:49 am)pocaracas Wrote:Hi, the actual measured age of the earth is changing (adjusted from time to time as "new evidence" comes to light) but is again dependent upon certain assumptions - like uniformatism and a number of others.(January 29, 2014 at 3:25 am)Carnavon Wrote: Please see my previous response - I asked for proof of a statement made. Maybe you can help?
The claim that genesis is wrong?
Actual measured age of the universe. ~14 billion years.
actual measured age of the planet Earth. ~4 billion years.
genesis claim of the age of planet Earth (and the rest of the Universe) ~6000 years.
Is that enough, or do you want some more?
It may interest you to read on the accelerating expansion of the universe, dumping a number of assumptions I believe and thus "scientists" have to review their theories.
But on a more serious note - see if you can find "The sovereignty of God" by Arthur Pink. Maybe it is ridiculous of me to ask you to do this, as even "normal" Christians find this book a bit hard, but maybe it will give you an idea of who God is. Televangelists preach such a distorted gospel and I pity people who have to judge Christ by them. I trust you will consider it.
Have a fantastic day!
