0
1

[–] WhellEndowed 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

What do those theories claim?

My understanding is based on the creation story front and center, so my first question at this point is this: If the earth was created on the 2nd day, and the sun/moon/stars were created on the 4th day, how is the heliocentric theory possible?

0
0

[–] amarQ144 [S] ago 

They claim a lot more than I will describe here. The idea that the universe is a computer animation is quite popular with all the "for prime time science guys". Every one of them can be heard/watched having serious discussions about it. Every one of them also ridicules creation theory and considers flat earthers plain stupid. That said, not one can answer the question, "if a computer animation, who created it"...much less if the animation is flat or globe. FYI, the creation story was taken from even older creation stories...from a time before this planet orbited the current star we call "the sun".

0
1

[–] WhellEndowed 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Yeah I don't agree with those theories then. I base my understanding on repeatable, observable, testable ideas that have merit in reality and can be proven.

The creation story WAS the beginning. There are no "older creation stories" as any other creation stories would have been written after creation occurred.

Correction to an earlier comment I made: Earth was mentioned in the creation story on day 3. Sun/moon and stars on day 4. So still, we have an earth and no sun according to the origin story.

One interesting concept: The Bible claims God called waters to gather in one place so dry land could appear... it doesn't claim God created earth at the exact moment. So: if this is true, and earth existed under the water for a long time, then carbon dating and other dating methods showing earth minerals to be millions of years old would have merit, since those things did, in fact, exist before creation took place.

Just an idea, but I'm leaning towards plausible.