How many creationists practise what they preach?

AV1611VET · Mar 10, 2016

Cearbhall said:
If you accept that the idea doesn't stand up to science, then how can you call it history?

It's simple.

The creation events took place in 4004 BC.

Thus it's history.

Cearbhall · Mar 10, 2016

AV1611VET said:
It's simple.

The creation events took place in 4004 BC.

Thus it's history.

Hm. Maybe it was 4006 BC. I say you're wrong and the textbooks should say 4006 BC. Now what?

If you don't have a standard of evidence, you have nothing to stand on.

ScottA · Mar 10, 2016

JonFromMinnesota said:
Creationists do start at an assumed conclusion. They then work backwards, twisting facts to fit their conclusion. This is not science. Real science has done their homework. Evolution has been repeatedly tested and confirmed for 150 years. It's a fact.

What exactly has science assumed? I don't think you understand how science works.

Which is why creationism is NOT science. On the other hand, evolution is testable. It's supported by an abundance of facts and contradicted by none.

Is this your way of trying to shift the burden of proof? Creationism is your claim. Present your evidence.

When you say that this knowledge is limited to a certain number of people who have the capacity for such knowledge. You are claiming that only you and a select few have access to this.

What you said in this post is arrogant:

Hey Scott, instead boasting that you have access to knowledge that others do not, how about you present evidence for your claims. Or are you incapable of doing so?

Knowledge is demonstrable. Show us your evidence.

No one is arguing against science as a good and reasonable approach to understanding "this" world. But it is (and should be considered) the wrong tool for understanding matters of God...which supersedes matters of this world. This world is a realm [within] the greater realm of God, which makes for a difference of context: within this world all matters of time are relative, but within the overriding realm of God, time is not relative, and therefore, evolution must be considered as circumstantial [evidence] only: an educated guess, but a guess, nonetheless.

I am not trying to shift the burden of proof, but demonstrate your limited outlook...which is not an outlook at all, but a closed-circuit of circumstantial information. Your refusal or inability to look beyond your own understanding, has nothing to do with me proving anything... Does a sighted person have to prove the beauty of a sunset to the blind? No. However, the virtue of the blind, is that they know they are blind, and are inclined to take the sighted at their word. Ironically, being big on the value of demonstration...you, do not demonstrate such a virtue.

Yes, only some have the greater knowledge of God (obviously). But that is in no way an arrogant boast...anymore than the sighted are to the blind. You are just being spiteful, in addition to being unreasonable.

Let me get this straight: you want me to present physical evidence of spiritual truth, which you have thus far proven to be incapable of interpreting? Okay. Using the blind vs. the sighted analogy, tell me just how I would present the beauty of a sunset to the blind....and I'll get right on it. And...just who are you saying is "incapable", the sighted or the blind?

Jay Follett · Mar 10, 2016

ScottA said:
No one is arguing against science as a good and reasonable approach to understanding "this" world. But it is (and should be considered) the wrong tool for understanding matters of God...which supersedes matters of this world. This world is a realm [within] the greater realm of God, which makes for a difference of context: within this world all matters of time are relative, but within the overriding realm of God, time is not relative, and therefore, evolution must be considered as circumstantial [evidence] only: an educated guess, but a guess, nonetheless.

I am not trying to shift the burden of proof, but demonstrate your limited outlook...which is not an outlook at all, but a closed-circuit of circumstantial information. Your refusal or inability to look beyond your own understanding, has nothing to do with me proving anything... Does a sighted person have to prove the beauty of a sunset to the blind? No. However, the virtue of the blind, is that they know they are blind, and are inclined to take the sighted at their word. Ironically, being big on the value of demonstration...you, do not demonstrate such a virtue.

Yes, only some have the greater knowledge of God (obviously). But that is in no way an arrogant boast...anymore than the sighted are to the blind. You are just being spiteful, in addition to being unreasonable.

Let me get this straight: you want me to present physical evidence of spiritual truth, which you have thus far proven to be incapable of interpreting? Okay. Using the blind vs. the sighted analogy, tell me just how I would present the beauty of a sunset to the blind....and I'll get right on it. And...just who are you saying is "incapable", the sighted or the blind?

There is nothing more to be said then because fantasy wins every time.

Hoghead1 · Mar 10, 2016

I'm not following you at all, ScottA, on what you are saying about God and time. In what way is it relative here and then absolute in God?

OzSpen · Mar 10, 2016

TLK Valentine said:
Why don't you provide the evidence instead of asking a question?

What are you doing? Asking a question! :scratch:

bhsmte · Mar 10, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
I'm not following you at all, ScottA, on what you are saying about God and time. In what way is it relative here and then absolute in God?

Join the club.

AV1611VET · Mar 10, 2016

Cearbhall said:
Hm. Maybe it was 4006 BC. I say you're wrong and the textbooks should say 4006 BC. Now what?

Is that what you truly believe?

OzSpen · Mar 10, 2016

TLK Valentine said:
That depends on whose opinion you believe.

Tell us your view.

Joshua260 · Mar 10, 2016

OzSpen said:
I've already covered that in that we don't know how long the creation days were. Why don't you read some of the evidence for an Old Earth interpretation that includes scholars such as Gleason Archer, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Walter Kaiser, William Dembski, J I Packer, J P Moreland, Philip E Johnson, Francis Schaeffer, etc.

Here are examples of views of:

Francis Schaeffer: http://geochristian.com/2008/12/05/francis-schaeffer-on-the-age-of-the-earth/

A list of 'Notable Christians open to an Old-universe, Old-earth perspective' (with links to information about their views).

Blessings,
Oz

I'm very familiar with these folks and follow them often. But the point still remains...the few years of gaps that may be in the genealogies wouldn't add much more than a few generations more to the 6K years.

ScottA · Mar 10, 2016

Jay Follett said:
There is nothing more to be said then because fantasy wins every time.

If the beauty of a sunset is a "fantasy", just because the blind cannot see it...then, yes, there is nothing more to say to you who draw that conclusion.

Cearbhall · Mar 10, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Is that what you truly believe?

Nope, it's hypothetical. Will you answer my question?

Joshua260 · Mar 10, 2016

OzSpen said:
I assure you that those I've mentioned have a high view of Scripture. Are you aware that an 'appeal to authority' is also the name given to a logical fallacy, which demonstrates fallacious reasoning. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

ummm...yes. That's why I pointed out that what you did, listing a set of notable Christians who happen to agree with your view, was an appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy and doesn't do anything to prove your view. I could just as well produce an equally impressive list of Christians and scientists who disagree with your view.

ScottA · Mar 10, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
I'm not following you at all, ScottA, on what you are saying about God and time. In what way is it relative here and then absolute in God?

This world of time (creation), is limited to this world...but God is not limited to this world, but is timeless, and His timelessness supersedes this world.

Hoghead1 · Mar 10, 2016

Well, I may or may not have trouble with that, ScottA, depending upon what you men by timeless. If you mean that God cannot experience time, cannot change, cannot experience any successiveness, then no, I don't agree at all. A timeless God in that sense can never know us creatures who are in time. Furthermore, such a concept of timelessness argues that time is really one big illusion; for if we could see reality as it really is, and that means from God's perspective, there would be no time. Forget that. Time is too real for me to go for that.

AV1611VET · Mar 10, 2016

Cearbhall said:
Nope, it's hypothetical. Will you answer my question?

I've already addressed this point before.

But I'll be glad to do it yet again.

I once took a calculator and did the math myself, and had about a 100-year variance with Mr. Ussher's calculations.

But I still use Mr. Ussher's calculations for the sake of Occam's razor.

That way, I don't have to explain my calculations every time I give a date.

In fact, when asked for a date, I just look it up in the Scofield Reference Bible, which also uses his calculations.

OzSpen · Mar 10, 2016

bhsmte said:
What evidence, are you referring to?

You can Google as well as I can of finding creation stories in other religions and cultures. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

OzSpen · Mar 10, 2016

Joshua260 said:
I'm very familiar with these folks and follow them often. But the point still remains...the few years of gaps that may be in the genealogies wouldn't add much more than a few generations more to the 6K years.

You haven't provided that evidence here about the few years of gaps in the genealogies. We are still dealing with the meaning of 'days' in Gen 1-2.

OzSpen · Mar 10, 2016

Joshua260 said:
ummm...yes. That's why I pointed out that what you did, listing a set of notable Christians who happen to agree with your view, was an appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy and doesn't do anything to prove your view. I could just as well produce an equally impressive list of Christians and scientists who disagree with your view.

No, I was giving examples of eminent Christians who take a different view to yours. They have access to the same biblical evidence but conclude differently. I wonder why? You will find out the 'why' by reading their material.

Do you want me to provide evidence from the laity in my church and other churches that disagree with you? Would that be more in line with avoiding an appeal to authority?

Oz

ScottA · Mar 10, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
Well, I may or may not have trouble with that, ScottA, depending upon what you men by timeless. If you mean that God cannot experience time, cannot change, cannot experience any successiveness, then no, I don't agree at all. A timeless God in that sense can never know us creatures who are in time. Furthermore, such a concept of timelessness argues that time is really one big illusion; for if we could see reality as it really is, and that means from God's perspective, there would be no time. Forget that. Time is too real for me to go for that.

Timeless. Yes. Illusion. Yes. What did you think "I am" means?

How many creationists practise what they preach?

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Author: Walking Like Einstein

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Author: Walking Like Einstein

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Author: Walking Like Einstein

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Author: Walking Like Einstein

Similar threads