is creating with age deceptive?

[ForumMonk]

What concerns me more is the reaction of non-believers ... the non-believers can see right through that.... And then they prematurely label all Christians as uneducated fools ... In short, the unbelievers feel they must become stupid to become Christian, and I think it's an unwarranted shame.

Hi Mallon,
I think this applies to OEC and TE as well. In fact I can point you to many skeptics and atheist web sites which ridicule nearly any Christian apologetic argument you care to name. Its not fair to single out a particuar site or point of view with the implication that perhaps your beliefs are above reproach in the eyes of the secular world.

Regards,
FM

 

[Mallon]

I think this applies to OEC and TE as well. In fact I can point you to many skeptics and atheist web sites which ridicule nearly any Christian apologetic argument you care to name.

I agree. There are folks out there who will poke fun at Christians from all walks of life. And I would argue that they hold to the same dogmatic fondness of scientism that some YECs do (that is to say, they value empiricism over faith). It's a misappropriation of science that I think many Christians and atheists alike are guilty of, and it leads either group in strongly polar directions.

 

[archaeologist]

mallon:

In short, the unbelievers feel they must become stupid to become Christian, and I think it's an unwarranted shame. I think the focus of Christianity should be placed back squarely on the grace of Christ (the Gospel), rather than on a particular interpretation of a single book of the Bible

i believe 1 Cor. 1:26-31 answers that problem right there. if people are not willing to humble themselves to be foolish for God but must remain arrogant,prideful and so on, then what good are the for God?

further on we read:

2:6-10: " we do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age who are coming to nothing. No we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden...None of the rulers of this age understood it...But God has revealed it to us by His Spirit."

you see,it is not done by secular science by by God and His Spirit. this is clarified further on in verses 12-14:

"We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God,that we may understand what God has freely givenus. This is what we speak, NOT inwords taught us by human wisdom BUT in words taught us by the Spirit,expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.** The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, FOR THEY ARE FOOLISHNESS to him and he cannot understand them..."
{capitals mine}

**there is only one truth not a scientific one and a spiritualone as Jesus said, I AM the Truth...

so you must decide if you are going to follow God and His 'foolish' truth or stick to man's wisdom and science. Up to you.

 

[archaeologist]

Science is not and cannot be that absolute. Is that the fault of science? Or are you just looking in the wrong place?

What puzzles me is why people want science to be an absolute and are so disappointed when they find it is not that they end up taking anti-science positions. Why this creationist longing for science to be what it is not and cannot be?

that is why it cannot be used to interpret or change what God said in the Bible. God is absolute and what He says is not up for change by the fallible, the corrupt, the sinful.

without God and run by secular people it will always be corrupted, deceived and deceiving because it is not of God.

science has to change and walk with God not without Him.which means that scientists have tochange and acknowledge God as their savior, give up sin and lookto Himto lead them and not natural answers.

this is also why God was not deceptive in creation as stated by Gens 1. and that it is science in its present form which is lying and being deceptive. because it takes it lead from the evil one and not God. (1 John 3:7-10)

Christians have to shun evil in all fields of life or they will not get the answers or the victory they seek.

 

[Mallon]

Thanks for the lecture, archaeologist. You continue to suprise me by calling yourself an archaeologist, and at the same time denouncing everything associated with the field, including science and the ability to peer into the past. One thing I do want to ask you about, though...

you see,it is not done by secular science by by God and His Spirit....
so you must decide if you are going to follow God and His 'foolish' truth or stick to man's wisdom and science. Up to you.

You seem to be implying here that the only way we can know anything is by being lead by the Spirit. The problem is that people have made all sorts of nutty declarations in the past, and claim to have been lead by the Spirit. So my question is this: Is there any possible way that we can distinguish between preposterous claims and factual claims, when both are said to have been influenced by the Spirit?

 

[mark kennedy]

There are none so blind as those who cannot see.

But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! (Matt. 6:23)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:1-5)

Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.(Acts 28:26-27)​

She sees what's important clear enough.

 

[KerrMetric]

She sees what's important clear enough.

Evidently not.

 

[busterdog]

I agree. There are folks out there who will poke fun at Christians from all walks of life. And I would argue that they hold to the same dogmatic fondness of scientism that some YECs do (that is to say, they value empiricism over faith). It's a misappropriation of science that I think many Christians and atheists alike are guilty of, and it leads either group in strongly polar directions.

There is something to be said for unabashed conviction. Let's take a guy I didn't like and a position that was sinful. Clinton obviously was stoking the ganja in his past. I could have done without all that crap about not inhaling. I would rather the guy just said it was great weed and he was high as a kite. That's a position you can deal with, for good or ill. Too much that people say is this finger in the wind, any way the wind blows nonsense.

I think decent people have (measured) respect for an honestly stubborn position spoken with conviction and without trying to hide it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Evidently not.

"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night." (Psalm 1:1,2)

"How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?" (Proverbs 1:22)​

She sees the glory of God in the things that are made and does not mock those she disagrees with.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," (Romans 1:20-22)

But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! (Matt. 6:23)​

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[archaeologist]

You continue to suprise me by calling yourself an archaeologist, and at the same time denouncing everything associated with the field, including science and the ability to peer into the past

what is an i.d. on an annonomous board??

the same principles i have talked about here i have applied to archaeology and have seen where archaeologists err in their conclusions and theories.

finkelstein said it himself that he was out to re-write jewish history. that is certainly defies any scientific principles that apply to that field.

the only factual seeing into the past is from the written records we find that at no time are we really seeing into the past, just reading their records ( not a complete picture either-K.A.Kitchen, 'the bible in its world')

i have asked twice now for examples of scientists ability to see into the earth's past and so far all i have received is a 'look at the stars' response. sorry but that doesn't tell me about the past nor is it looking into the past.

most of the science works i have read only state that they look at another planet to see into earth's past. unfortunately, that is bogus because another planet is not earth and it is not looking for anything but clues to evolutionary origins.

to me, that skews the research for the stated principle of objectivity is thrown out the window and no data is being collected to check out creation.

{unless you have some i do not know about}

the past is gone, and everything that science observes (at the time of observation) is the present one can only speculate about the past if they reject the creation account foundin the Bible.

to claim one can see billions of years back when we do not even know when the beginning was, is wishful and unrealistic thinking based solely on speculation and ot fact.

by the way, today i picked up the book 'being a christian in science' by walter r. hearn. maybe it will shed some light but so far the impression i get is that constructive criticism is a lost art form.

 

[archaeologist]

You seem to be implying here that the only way we can know anything is by being lead by the Spirit. The problem is that people have made all sorts of nutty declarations in the past, and claim to have been lead by the Spirit. So my question is this: Is there any possible way that we can distinguish between preposterous claims and factual claims, when both are said to have been influenced by the Spirit?

1. that is what the Bible says not me.

2. yes and i will agree with you on that as i do not agree with ken ham's creation museum. i think it is a farce and does damage to Christ's work. but don't read into that that i am OEC. I am not. OEC's do the same thing.

3. yes there are, some general ones:

a}. it has to be true (ye shall know the truth...)
b}. is it provable (we can prove creation via the results)
c}. does it point to God (evolution doesn't nor does a christianizing of same)
d} does it bring glory to God (many men want the glory)
e}. is it consistant with the message of the Bible
f}. does it provide answers (Gen. 1 provides all the answers to origins)
g}. is it consistant with God's commands, directives & instructions
h}. does it diminish God, His power, His authority, His place as God.

one of the problems i have with theistic evolution and progressive creationism, is that both open God up to ridicule for not using his power to create like He could.

they make God subject to natural laws, processes which in the eyes of the non-religious would be ludicrious becaue he is supposed to be an all powerful God. plus these theories make Him look to be a normal god and not the ONE and Only God.

The genesis account shows God at His most powerful, leaving no openings for the unsaved to mock Him or to disregard Him as flawed or subject to His own creation.

this is why i say that God created in a manner that left no doubt who was God. it leaves the non-believer with no excuse BUT when 'christians' choose alternatives, then they have given the unsaved an excuse for not believing--because 'christians' don't.

 

[shernren]

c}. does it point to God (evolution doesn't nor does a christianizing of same)

one of the problems i have with theistic evolution and progressive creationism, is that both open God up to ridicule for not using his power to create like He could.

they make God subject to natural laws, processes which in the eyes of the non-religious would be ludicrious becaue he is supposed to be an all powerful God. plus these theories make Him look to be a normal god and not the ONE and Only God.

The genesis account shows God at His most powerful, leaving no openings for the unsaved to mock Him or to disregard Him as flawed or subject to His own creation.

this is why i say that God created in a manner that left no doubt who was God. it leaves the non-believer with no excuse BUT when 'christians' choose alternatives, then they have given the unsaved an excuse for not believing--because 'christians' don't.

That's strange, the Genesis account doesn't tell me how God created. It tells me that God created, and what God created (which surprisingly doesn't include penguins, algae, or black holes!), but not how. Don't believe me? It's in the Bible.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
(Genesis 1:3 ESV)

Note what the Bible says. It doesn't say ...

And God said, "Let there be light," and He waved His hands and did something incomprehensibly so complex that there is no scientific description for it, and there was light.

or,

And God said, "Let there be light," and the angels got together and formed a committee under God's executive production, and there was light (and then camera, and then ACTION!)

or,

And God said, "Let there be light," and the universe was so wildly and madly in love with God that it put on its best show, and there was light.

or,

And God said, "Let there be light," and because God had taught the universe from the very start how Maxwell's equations and the Three Laws of Thermodynamics worked, and energy redistributed itself throughout the universe, and there was light.

You see? God could've thrown dice, or put together a committee of angels, or simply willed it into existence by sheer willpower the same way a constipated guy eventually finishes the job. Or He could've used natural laws. Either way God is God. His power is displayed in the beauty of the laws He uses. And I should have far less respect if God had to break His laws so often to do what He wanted - as if He set up the world, left it running, and then suddenly said "Nuts! The law of XXX doesn't allow Me to execute My will in the world! Here goes ... "

Oh, God is not subject to His creation. But He is committed to His creation. And I believe that He did a good job - and a good workman should never have to break his work to fix it, should he?

 

[archaeologist]

That's strange, the Genesis account doesn't tell me how God created

actually it does--God spoke. this is confirmed later by peter.

which surprisingly doesn't include penguins, algae, or black holes!)

doesn't it? i think you need to read more carefully. not every individual creature or star will be named,that would just be redundant and then your complaint would have been..."God wrote too much, He should have shortened it."

if you can't believe God then whom are you going to believe? science doesn't offer salvation.

 

[Mallon]

You continue to amaze me with your take on science and faith, archaeologist. I'm interested in learning more about the subservience of science to your faith, and how you manage to do science, as an archaeologist. You said before that you have four degrees and are aiming at a fifth. I take it, then, that as a self-proclaimed scientist, you have published research papers? If so, would you be willing to post or link to one here? If not, would you be willing to describe a typical research project that you have worked on, how you proceed, how you interpret results, etc.? Perhaps you would be willing to start a new thread on this topic...

 

[busterdog]

actually it does--God spoke. this is confirmed later by peter.



doesn't it? i think you need to read more carefully. not every individual creature or star will be named,that would just be redundant and then your complaint would have been..."God wrote too much, He should have shortened it."

if you can't believe God then whom are you going to believe? science doesn't offer salvation.

We don't know how Jesus was resurrected either, but we all believe it.

You are right. You need nothing more.

 

[seekingmyLord]

actually it does--God spoke.

Works for me!

 

[busterdog]

You continue to amaze me with your take on science and faith, archaeologist. I'm interested in learning more about the subservience of science to your faith, and how you manage to do science, as an archaeologist. You said before that you have four degrees and are aiming at a fifth. I take it, then, that as a self-proclaimed scientist, you have published research papers? If so, would you be willing to post or link to one here? If not, would you be willing to describe a typical research project that you have worked on, how you proceed, how you interpret results, etc.? Perhaps you would be willing to start a new thread on this topic...

I second the motion.

 

[crawfish]

We don't know how Jesus was resurrected either, but we all believe it.

You are right. You need nothing more.

NOBODY needs anything more. All we need to do is believe and be obedient, and we are saved.

We really don't NEED many of the things we have. We lived without cars, shopping malls and electricity just fine. We currently live fine without interstellar travel, Mars bases and nanotech. Should we stop searching because of that? I certainly hope not! As we investigate the stars for the future, we inevitably learn about the past. Change is always scary, but it is the one constant in human existence.

BTW, I like your approach. I have no doubts about what you believe or how strongly you believe, but I have never once felt judged by you. I know you probably look in horror at some of the things I and other TE's post, but you do keep the level of discourse above-level and treat the other side with respect. It enables this forum to exist, and for all sides to share their views. If understanding is the key to unity, then that is an important thing.

If only all of us could be that way.

 

[archaeologist]

mallon:

You continue to amaze me with your take on science and faith, archaeologist. I'm interested in learning more about the subservience of science to your faith, and how you manage to do science, as an archaeologist. You said before that you have four degrees and are aiming at a fifth. I take it, then, that as a self-proclaimed scientist, you have published research papers? If so, would you be willing to post or link to one here? If not, would you be willing to describe a typical research project that you have worked on, how you proceed, how you interpret results, etc.? Perhaps you would be willing to start a new thread on this topic...

why would you want proof? have my words contradicted the words of God ? or have they just contradicted your thinking and made you think about your own practices and beliefs?

I take it, then, that as a self-proclaimed scientist

the only claim i have made was that i have studied and graduated and that has been it.

buster:

You need nothing more.

i never said that so how could i be right on that issue?

 

[archaeologist]

You continue to amaze me with your take on science and faith

p.s.-- i am not here to promote myself but to point people backto God and His word.