Bill Nye: Kids are "brainwashed" at Noah's Ark museum Any thoughts.

ViaCrucis · Jul 15, 2016

Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors said:
How does being a young earth creationist make one guilty believing God is a liar ?

Because to be a Young Earth Creationist means believing that the record as contained in creation itself is false.

To be a Young Earth Creationist means believing that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, even though we can see the light from stars and galaxies that are millions, even billions of light years away. Since a light year is the distance light travels in a year, and since the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant (c) we know that if we see the light from an object a million light years away, then the photons which are just now reaching us here on earth left their source a million years ago. Young Earth Creationist explanations for this require that God is a liar: Usually that God created the universe in situ and that the light which we are seeing didn't actually originate from its origin point but sometime in mid-transit; that makes God deceitful since all possible evidence and all possible indication is that the light actually did come from its point of origin at the time as indicated on account of the known laws of the universe.

To be a Young Earth Creationist means believing that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, even though we can count the layers of ice in Antarctic ice cores with yearly thaws and freezes going back hundreds of the thousands of years. We can measure the rate of radioactive decay through a number of methods, such as uranium-lead dating, we know the half-life of uranium and the rate at which uranium decays into lead, and so we can measure that decay and the ratios of uranium to lead to pretty accurately date the age of very old rocks. That's not the only form of radiometric dating, there's also carbon dating which measures the ratio of carbon14 and carbon12 isotopes, there's potassium-argon dating, etc. There's dendrochronology where we can measure the age of trees, there are trees older than the universe if the YEC claims are to be believed, just FWI.

So to be a Young Earth Creationist, quite frankly, would mean that I'd have to believe God is a liar, because if God is the author of creation, then creation should be a true account. Or have you not read the Psalmist who has said,

"The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world."

I believe in the God of truth. And that's why I'm not a Young Earth Creationist.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Jul 15, 2016

Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors said:
Even Christ Believed in the Genesis Account Go Figure ...
When teaching about marriage, Jesus said:

‘But at the beginning of creation God “made them male and female. … For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one’ (Mark 10:6–8).
Here, Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 about a real first man and first woman who became the first couple, and this was the basis for marriage between one man and one woman today.

Isn't it amazing how Jesus never mentions anything about taking the accounts in Genesis literally or not literally, but merely refers to them to make an important ethical and theological point?

Perhaps you'd like to try again?

-CryptoLutheran

Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors · Jul 15, 2016

ViaCrucis said:
St. Paul doesn't ever mention a literal or non-literal interpretation of the Genesis account.

You can pretend that he does, but he doesn't. No where in any of the Pauline literature do we see Paul address the literal or non-literal meaning of Genesis 1.

-CryptoLutheran

Paul taught much about the role of men and women in church. Paul justified it by citing the real history of Genesis. He wrote:

‘For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man’ (1 Corinthians 11:8–9).

Thus, Paul accepts the Genesis history that God created first Adam, who then named all the land vertebrate animals that God had previously created, then God made Eve from Adam’s rib—she was not an evolved apewoman! However, later on Paul points out:

‘In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God’ (1 Corinthians 11:11–12).

Here, Paul is following Genesis as well, for Adam named his wife Eve because she would become ‘the mother of all the living’ (Genesis 3:20).

Paul repeats this even more directly in his instructions to his pupil Timothy, ‘For Adam was first formed, then Eve’ (1 Timothy 2:13). Next verse, Paul teaches that Genesis 3 is also real history, ‘And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.’

Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors · Jul 15, 2016

ViaCrucis said:
Isn't it amazing how Jesus never mentions anything about taking the accounts in Genesis literally or not literally, but merely refers to them to make an important ethical and theological point?

Perhaps you'd like to try again?

-CryptoLutheran

Why Not .

Jesus taught about the sudden reality of His future judgment by comparing it to the time of Noah:

‘Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the Ark. Then the Flood came and destroyed them all’ (Luke 17:26–27).

Here, Jesus treats Noah as a real person, the Ark as a real ship and the Flood as a real event that destroyed all people outside the Ark.

Peter likewise warned of a coming Judgment by comparing it with the Flood. He even said that one characteristic of ‘scoffers’ was a willful ignorance of two things: the reality of special creation of the world out of water, and its destruction by water (2 Peter 3:3–7).

But if we deny that the Flood was a real event, then logically the future Judgment must be denied as well.

ViaCrucis · Jul 15, 2016

Nicholas Deka said:
Full of information as always, ViaCrucis. I brought it up in this thread though because of the folks that take everything in the Bible as a historical narrative, and are therefore going to consider these to be real animals that existed at one time.

They always seemed extra-legendary to me. I mean, why would you show Leviathan and how awesome he was, but also show Behemoth if he was just a regular animal? Exotic at best, if it was a hippo or an elephant. Never heard of Ziz.

The Ziz isn't mentioned in any biblical material, but is found in second temple material that never made it into the Canon. In the Wiki article I think it mentioned a reference in Enoch, but I didn't check to make sure. It does feature, I think, in some rabbinic literature, and along with Behemoth and Leviathan can be found in Jewish artwork in antiquity/middle ages:

-CryptoLutheran

JonFromMinnesota · Jul 15, 2016

Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors said:
According to a recent Gallup poll, only fifteen percent of us believe we evolved by chance.

That's saying a lot , not everyone is on board with it folks.

http://listverse.com/2013/03/08/10-alternatives-to-evolution/

99.9% of practicing scientists agree that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. I don't care what the lay person thinks as long as they aren't trying to sneak creationism into the science classroom. Experts that dedicate their life to this subject agree that evolution has mountains of evidence and any one of them would jump at the chance to falsify it because it would be an instant Nobel Prize.

Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors · Jul 15, 2016

ViaCrucis said:
Isn't it amazing how Jesus never mentions anything about taking the accounts in Genesis literally or not literally, but merely refers to them to make an important ethical and theological point?

Perhaps you'd like to try again?

-CryptoLutheran

In John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote. And one of the passages in the writings of Moses inExodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This, of course, is the basis for our seven-day week—six days of work and one day of rest. Obviously, this passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of seven literal days based on the Creation Week of six literal days of work and one literal day of rest.

It's kinda important Jesus was Jewish ..
He believed in the 6 Day creation & the Sabbath

ViaCrucis · Jul 15, 2016

Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors said:
Paul taught much about the role of men and women in church. Paul justified it by citing the real history of Genesis. He wrote:

‘For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man’ (1 Corinthians 11:8–9).

Thus, Paul accepts the Genesis history that God created first Adam, who then named all the land vertebrate animals that God had previously created, then God made Eve from Adam’s rib—she was not an evolved apewoman! However, later on Paul points out:

‘In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God’ (1 Corinthians 11:11–12).

Here, Paul is following Genesis as well, for Adam named his wife Eve because she would become ‘the mother of all the living’ (Genesis 3:20).

Paul repeats this even more directly in his instructions to his pupil Timothy, ‘For Adam was first formed, then Eve’ (1 Timothy 2:13). Next verse, Paul teaches that Genesis 3 is also real history, ‘And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.’

It shows that Paul knows the narrative. And that Paul can refer to the narrative as a reference to make his points. It doesn't indicate whether or not Paul thought it was literal or not.

Paul very well may have believed the story of Adam and Eve was literal history--I don't know, and neither do you. What we don't have here with Paul is an answer to that question or the question of whether it should be taken literally or not.

The authors of the New Testament were perfectly capable of taking the texts of the Jewish Scriptures and using them for their own purposes. Matthew quotes Hosea where it says, "Out of Egypt I have called My son" which in Hosea is about Israel and the Exodus, but Matthew uses it to refer to the Holy Family's fleeing Herod to Egypt and eventual return from there to Nazareth. I know it's tempting to think that people in the past thought, felt, and did things like you and I do today but they didn't. A history, for example, didn't need to be a chronology of historic events, it could instead be a dramatic telling ordered by themes, that was a common way to write histories in antiquity, and we can see a similar thing when comparing the four Gospels. Notice it's a little odd that all three Synoptics place Jesus' driving out the animals from the Temple near the end of His ministry, just before the fateful events of His final week while John places this event right at the beginning of his text? Or notice how there's not always precise agreement among texts, for example in Matthew it says Jesus gave His Sermon on the mount, in Luke it says Jesus gave it on a plain. The genealogical records in Matthew and Luke don't agree, and I know that it's common to argue that Luke is actually Mary's genealogy but that's not what the text actually says and nobody thought that about it until pretty modern times; instead the accounts differ because Matthew and Luke have different purposes for their writing about Jesus.

All these things are part of what makes the Bible the Bible. Insisting that the Bible be something else, which is what I notice Fundamentalists usually do, is to mishandle, and demonstrate a failure to just let the Bible be the Bible. Trying to change the Bible to conform to one's own views isn't a faithful use of God's word.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Jul 15, 2016

Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors said:
efore Christ.1

In John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote. And one of the passages in the writings of Moses inExodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This, of course, is the basis for our seven-day week—six days of work and one day of rest. Obviously, this passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of seven literal days based on the Creation Week of six literal days of work and one literal day of rest.

It's kinda important Jesus was Jewish ..
He believed in the 6 Day creation .

You're basically just repeating yourself at this point, and if I respond to this I'll just repeat what I already said. Look to my responses already, because they apply equally to this post as well. You're making inferences without substantiation.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Jul 15, 2016

Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors said:
Why Not .

Jesus taught about the sudden reality of His future judgment by comparing it to the time of Noah:

‘Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the Ark. Then the Flood came and destroyed them all’ (Luke 17:26–27).

Here, Jesus treats Noah as a real person, the Ark as a real ship and the Flood as a real event that destroyed all people outside the Ark.

It means Jesus and His listeners were familiar with the text and story. Again, referring to a story does not indicate belief in the story's literalness.

But if we deny that the Flood was a real event, then logically the future Judgment must be denied as well.

There's nothing logical about that conclusion whatsoever. Jesus doesn't predicate the future judgment on the historicity of Noah and the flood, if Jesus predicated it on Noah and the flood being historical then you may have a valid point; but Jesus doesn't do that. Jesus uses the story of the flood as an illustration for the judgment.

-CryptoLutheran

Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors · Jul 15, 2016

JonFromMinnesota said:
99.9% of practicing scientists agree that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. I don't care what the lay person thinks as long as they aren't trying to sneak creationism into the science classroom. Experts that dedicate their life to this subject agree that evolution has mountains of evidence and any one of them would jump at the chance to falsify it because it would be an instant Nobel Prize.

The Creation Research Society currently has a membership of 650 scientists, each one holding a Master’s degree or above in a recognized field of science. In a recent article Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, estimates that there are around 10,000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day creation.

VirOptimus · Jul 15, 2016

Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors said:
-snip-
But if we deny that the Flood was a real event, then logically the future Judgment must be denied as well.

I dont care much for what the bible says, me being atheist and all. But science is an tool helping us describe physical reality.

When you argue for a worldwide flood or against evolution or against common descent you are arguing against physical reality. Not a good place to be in my opinion.

If you care enough to actually learn about science and learn what a scientific theory really entails you will also see why your arguments are not taken seriously.

Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors · Jul 15, 2016

ViaCrucis said:
It means Jesus and His listeners were familiar with the text and story. Again, referring to a story does not indicate belief in the story's literalness.

There's nothing logical about that conclusion whatsoever. Jesus doesn't predicate the future judgment on the historicity of Noah and the flood, if Jesus predicated it on Noah and the flood being historical then you may have a valid point; but Jesus doesn't do that. Jesus uses the story of the flood as an illustration for the judgment.

-CryptoLutheran

Lol

VirOptimus said:
I dont care much for what the bible says, me being atheist and all. But science is an tool helping us describe physical reality.

When you argue for a worldwide flood or against evolution or against common descent you are arguing against physical reality. Not a good place to be in my opinion.

If you care enough to actually learn about science and learn what a scientific theory really entails you will also see why your arguments are not taken seriously.

Unless you are of the Christian Faith How can I expect you to have understanding of it

TheQuietRiot · Jul 15, 2016

amariselle said:
Why is it that so many non-Christians seem to think that Christians are less intelligent and less reasonable?

Because many of you hold unsubstantiated and unreasonable positions.

Things that to a rational and intelligent person are laughable.

Noahs Ark for instance..

JonFromMinnesota · Jul 15, 2016

Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors said:
The Creation Research Society currently has a membership of 650 scientists, each one holding a Master’s degree or above in a recognized field of science.

Do they actively research in their field and submit their research to respected scientific journals? Creationists sites require their employees to disregard the scientific method and say that any evidence that disagrees with them is wrong. They are intellectually dishonest. In fact, they've been caught misrepresenting people's research.

In a recent article Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, estimates that there are around 10,000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day creation.

Humphreys hasn't worked at Sadia in 15 years. Someone did a video on his career, I can post it for you if you'd like.

He has only published 11 papers since getting his PhD, has less than 3 citations per paper and only 7 of his papers have been cited. That means his work has had virtually no impact on his field. This is what a failure looks like in science.

If you want a comparison, Stephanie Chasteen has a PhD in physics but mostly works in education services for highschools and colleges. Since she got he doctorate she has published 18 papers with 106 citations. Humphreys has had his PhD longer than she has been alive and she has had more of an impact on her field than he has.

Here is a list of scientists who agree that evolution is a demonstrable fact. There are over 1400 names on this list. All of them are named Steve.
https://ncse.com/list-of-steves

Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors · Jul 15, 2016

ViaCrucis said:
2nd Peter 3:2-7

2that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles,

3 in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.

4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”

5 was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,

6 was deluged with water and perished.

7 the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
2 Peter 3:4

3:4 beginning of the creation. The pseudo-scientific rationale for this indifference to the promised consummation of all things when Christ returns is their belief that there was never any real creation of all things in the beginning.

The things that continue today, they say, are the things that have always been, and therefore always will be. This is the so-called principle of uniformity.

This remarkable belief is evolutionary uniformitarianism, and it completely dominates the scientific and educational establishments of every nation in the world today.

This indeed is a most remarkable fulfillment of Peter’s prophecy, and surely must indicate that these days really are “the last days,” unless somehow the Lord brings about a great revival of truth in the world’s schools

ViaCrucis · Jul 15, 2016

Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors said:
The Creation Research Society currently has a membership of 650 scientists, each one holding a Master’s degree or above in a recognized field of science. In a recent article Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, estimates that there are around 10,000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day creation.

How many have degrees in fields of relevant study? How many have degrees from accredited universities?

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Jul 15, 2016

Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors said:
Lol

That's not much of a rebuttal.

-CryptoLutheran

VirOptimus · Jul 15, 2016

Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors said:
-snip-

Unless you are of the Christian Faith How can I expect you to have understanding of it

I dont know? I really dont see how that matters anyway.

This isnt about faith, its about science. And I do know science, you clearly dont. You clearly dont understand that you try to argue against physical reality.

StanJ · Jul 15, 2016

redleghunter said:
Nye would know about brainwashing...Kids and even adults today actually believe he is a 'science guy.'

Yeah I was going to say if anybody's brainwashed it's Bill Nye.

Bill Nye: Kids are "brainwashed" at Noah's Ark museum Any thoughts.

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Kingdom Heir <3

Kingdom Heir <3

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Kingdom Heir <3

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Kingdom Heir <3

A nihilist who cares.

Kingdom Heir <3

indomitable

Well-Known Member

Kingdom Heir <3

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

A nihilist who cares.

Student & Correct Handler of God's Word.

Similar threads