Atheists will swear up and down that atheism and evolution are not religion. Well why do you need a church? The first 4 images like to the videos the images represent on youtube.
Click on image to see YouTube video
FaceBook Feed
At CrossPoint Church, we love helping people become wholehearted disciples of Jesus Christ.
Sadly, many people are more than willing to try to reinterpret Christ’s plain meaning in Mark 10 because of their absolute adherence to millions and billions of years. But it undermines the authorit...
The age of the earth is irrelevant to me. And you must know that the genesis is not a detailed account of creation. Therefore one cannot interprete everything in the genesis account literally. The bible said that in the beginning, God created heaven and earth. That means the earth was probably created at about the same time with heaven. When is this beginning when the heaven was created? Was it 4000 BC? were all angels and man created during the first week of 4000 bc? I want to encourage you to lay aside your prejudices & study the bible, you will see that Jesus is not God. several scriptures show that Jesus is subordinate to God. Even Jesus often prayed to YHWH and often referred to HIM as his God. How can GOD be praying? Can God have a God? Jesus told magdalene that her God is his God. John 20:17. Trinity is man-made doctrine. sometimes. i consider it blasphamous. study these scriptures; 1 cor 11:3, 1 cor 15:27,28,Rev 3:12, John 5;30,6:38,7:16-18,7:28-29, 1 john 4:12,john 20:17,Mark 10:18, luke 18:19.
It is the pridefullness of man that makes them seeking time consuming and long winded explanations for what God meant to be simply understood, in the Spirit. Why must man always create burdens where God never intended?
I appreciate this article so much, thank you AIG....
Look at the parallel verse in Matthew 19:4. There is no mention of the beginning *of creation* there, and rightly so, since the passage in both books is *not* about the creation week. Again, no matter how much AiG tries to use Mark 10:6 as some sort of proof text for their interpretation, it appears that Jesus didn’t consider the AiG position important enough to mention clearly and consistently. The consistent thing we actually do find in the Bible is that this passage is about marriage and divorce. The end. The meaning of the passage is spectacularly clear: ever since there were created humans to even consider the concept of marriage between, they were created to be married, and as a husband-wife pair. This is an obvious difference from the entire rest of creation (i.e. the created world.) If you can only defend your position (a young earth) from passages that aren’t about your position (genealogies or passages about marriage), your position is pretty weak and obviously not a core tenant of the Scriptures.
Chris Nugent
I'm in 100% agreement with AiG on taking God at His word. At the same time, I find it strange that AiG does not take Jesus at His word when He said all that is required for eternal salvation is to simply believe.
It's a shame to see christians denying the truth of God's word in order to try to make the beliefs of a culture that hates God fit into God's truths. I read comments here and see those claiming to be christians deny God's word is true calling God a lair. They are not followers of Jesus, but pretenders
Read Walt Brown’s “in the beginning”. It’s the best science book you can read. The earth is young.
“God is always right, and if we have to “reinterpret” God’s Word over and over again to mean something other than what it plainly says, then we, as fallible people, are the ones in error.” A great summary statement, applicable to a wide range of Biblical issues, that are willfully misinterpreted and embraced by so many proclaiming Christians.
Excellent♡
Sean Smith
Lamont English
Simple mined question. If it's an old Earth? Why did we only become smart in the last 6,000 years? Mechanical transportation in the last 200? Space only 60 years ago? Yet our supposed wisest can't figure out the Pyramids and other ancient civilizations. Our elected officials that graduated from university with an economics degree don't understand how economies work. Nor a heart beat means life.
If you can’t trust the first chapter of the Bible why trust the rest...
What is AiGs textual response to John Sailhammers argument concerning how scripture uses “In the beginning...”? I guess this would be a version if #3
God create Adam as adult, so God might create universe as "adult" too... Not a zero age baby universe
John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
When we say that something happened at the beginning of the year, if does not always mean January 1st.
Some still believe it's old and flat. LOL!
🤔 Things to think about
Young Earth
also destroys the blue ba'al
In Their point 2, they make the case that it is cultic to change the meaning of God’s Word to fit external beliefs that are unbiblical. That is exactly what proponents of Tattooing say! “You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.” Leviticus 19:28 ESV The Bible doesn’t say some tattooing is forbidden and some is ok. He universally commands you shall NOT TATTOO YOURSELVES! God’s Word says what it says. The worldly ( which includes every church that condoned Tattooing) ignores God’s Word. They do not speak for Christ. Taking the high view of salvation, one in which a miracle occurs that changes the Will of the saved, I question the salvation of those who justify sin! Sadly that includes most Christian churches.
Answers in Genesis re interpret scripture daily. Claiming evolution and big bang as factual. Your evolutionist christians. Not creationists. God made the world in 6 days. And rested the seventh. It didn't form via big bang. Stop twisting scripture Kenn Hamm and maybe the ark wouldn't have had its road washed out. Teach scripture for scripture. Not your Jesuit order reinterpret
The Living Quarters on the ark are practical but comfortable.
i have driven by a cattle farm...i bet that place stunk bad lol
Just remember, this is all artistic license...
Does everyone see the irony in the ark flooding? Wasn’t it suppose to survive the great flood? Do you not know unless you have flood insurance, you are not covered. Flooding is an “act of God”. Ask Louisiana residents how they faired after the flood. How about Puerto Rico? Maybe Missouri or even your neighbor, WV. Did you donate money to help those flood victims? Were the dinosaurs ok???
I'm sorry but I just don't think the ark was that comfortable....In fact I doubt that Noah's home was that comfortable.
They were probably better and more comfortable than my quarters on board the USS Abraham Lincoln! 😂
I doubt it.
It doesn’t seem they would’ve been that comfortable.
Indeed such a strong faith!
I also would not be here Miriam!
love her.
Watch the LIVE PREMIERE! It's starting right now! Visit BananaManStory.com
What do you do when the world’s most famous atheist mocks you internationally on television and throughout social media? Ray Comfort found out. “The Fool” is much more than a movie—it’s a po...
![Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until its rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/living-fossils.html
The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australias earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or little mountain monkey - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina.
Reference: http://www.create.unsw.edu.au/news/2008-03-25_monito.html
The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”
reference: http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/scientists-uncover-two-new-species-of-elusive-south-american-marsupial/](https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/p720x720/53599029_2508956542451190_6722509423316566016_n.png?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent.xx&oh=d03f08f029e1b54c2191e163847d9af3&oe=5D934C86)
Your picture makes it seem like the two species shown are found 55 Ma apart even though they are both modern species. Rather, it was the genus Djarthia (whose exact taxonomic position is uncertain) that occurs in the Paleocene, as noted in the PLOS paper you provided. This graphic is either a misunderstanding or diliberate misrepresentation of the references cited. May I ask what formal training in paleontology the admin of this page has had?
We didn't claim the skulls were from a 55 million year old fossil, it is the references that claim Monito del Monte is regarded as a living fossil and thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Here's some real science. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1779541/?report=classic
Colby, please stop spamming the contrasts. There is no need to post the same link multiple times, Thank you.
I was just doing a one shot on each post. I didnt even think anyone even looked at this page anymore. I apologize.
Looks like the Colbinator deleted his post 😭