Science Disproves Evolution
- Thread starter Pahu
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S
No no, I didn't doubt that you read it! I said you didn't look past it, despite the comment "we'll look past that." Was just a harmless jab. 
Okay, elucidate for me the paradox of someone being raised from the dead (it's too early in the morning and in the week for me to have my wits about me). We'll table the God learning one for now.
Okay, elucidate for me the paradox of someone being raised from the dead (it's too early in the morning and in the week for me to have my wits about me). We'll table the God learning one for now.
S
I think I understand what you're driving at, but let me phrase my question differently to better ask what I'm getting at: Wouldn't learning - for an omnipotent being - be irrelevant? Whether we indulge the paradox or not, it seems the question is just as mutually exclusive in its nature as the rock example.
Naturalistic theories of the origin of the universe generally fall into two categories: those that claim the universe appeared from nothing with no cause, thus denying causality and the conservation laws; and those that claim the universe is infinitely old, thus denying the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The recent idea based on string theory makes no more progress than the previous attempts, indicating that there is something fundamentally wrong with the naturalistic assumptions behind such ideas. If we simply take the laws of physics at face value, however, it becomes obvious that the universe must have had a beginning, and that it must have been caused by some outside agent. Thus there is no scientifically valid way to avoid the conclusion that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_13-14.pdf
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_13-14.pdf
M
Why do atheists still think this is a valid counter to the Christian God? Seriously, I have a bunch of 3rd graders at church that can shoot this down. So Grey, I really doubt that you're asking this because you don't know the answer, or becuase you've never once tried this on Christians before. I believe you know the response, and you just run around asking different Christians the same question expecting different results.
On the off chance you actually don't know and never ever even atempted to look into it before, God isn't a created being. God is eternal. By definition, something that's eternal cannot have a creator.
On the off chance you actually don't know and never ever even atempted to look into it before, God isn't a created being. God is eternal. By definition, something that's eternal cannot have a creator.