Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Hammster]

After numerous searches the most convincing book i found for leading a good life is the 84 page Tao Te Ching.

 

[Hammster]

Of course there is. People read into the book
whatever they want to find.
It's not an authoritative source anyway.

It actually is.

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.
— Genesis 2:4

 

[Frank Robert]

No, actually, they don't.

You are disparaging Hindus who believe their own scriptures. Most Hindus are devoted (through bhakti) to gods whom they worship in rituals (through karma) and whom they understand (through jnana) as aspects of ultimate reality.

Ask a Hindu what varna (caste) he's in, and he may not know what you're asking.

Even if that is so it doesn't say anything about his/her religious beliefs.

The truth is, the caste system was so oppressive to the Hindu, that they invented Buddhism as a "breakaway religion" from Hinduism.

You are correct Buddha rejected Hinduism and their gods. He all rejected all other gods.

If you want others to respect your right to worship as you choose you should respect the right of others to worship as they choose.

 

[Astrid]

I gave you the answer.

No you did not.


But in case I'm just dumb and
you are not dodging can we try just
one more non- badgering time?
Yes or no will do.

You believe that he earth is only
a few thousand years old.
Is it impossible for that belief
to be mistaken? Y/N

It actually is.

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.
— Genesis 2:4

That's your opinion.
Is it "authoritative" about Pi=3 ?

 

[Hammster]

You believe that he earth is only
a few thousand years old.
Is it impossible for that belief
to be mistaken? Y/N

Here’s what you asked.

Tell us, is there no way you can
be wrong about your " 6000 yrs"
etc?

Here’s my reply.

It’s not exact, no. But we can be reasonably sure that it’s between 6000 and 10000 years based on the way writers communicated back then. We can be very certain that millions and billions is off the table, though.

That’s sufficient. It’s not an exact number. I gave the ranges.

 

[Hammster]

That's your opinion.
Is it "authoritative" about Pi=3 ?

That’s the biblical account. I did a word search for Pi. It doesn’t show up, as least as far as math is concerned.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want others to respect your right to worship as you choose you should respect the right of others to worship as they choose.

Hinduism destroyed India.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hindus believe their holy book in the same manner that you believe yours.

That's actually debatable, for reasons that only those in the West can appreciate.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why do you need to know? What’s missing from your life if you don’t know the history?

'Cause it's interesting. Haven't you ever seen the flood basalts of the PNW? I have. Understanding how they got there enhances the experience.

 

[Hammster]

'Cause it's interesting. Haven't you ever seen the flood basalts of the PNW? I have. Understanding how they got there enhances the experience.

Yeah. I often marvel at God’s creation. The psalmists did quite often as well.

 

[Ophiolite]

You see the light that is reflected off of a tree. Just like a camera. Dark colors are absorbed and light colors are reflected. There are two theorys, the additive and the subtractive. I worked on the lighting for the Ballet company when I was in college so I know about the physics of light.

That still fails to address what you mean by "see", since the camera is only an analog for the lens and photo-receptor aspects of "seeing". You've addressed nothing at all about the neurological, which is where all the interesting stuff takes place.

I don’t have an argument that needs to be won. I have a truth that needs to be proclaimed

As you will, but you are doubtless aware that "truths" that are proclaimed in the face evidence are likely to be rejected. I can accept the "truth" evident in score or more scientific disciplines, or I can accept an unsubstantiated "truth" proclaimed by some chap on the internet. You might respond that you are simply repeating a "truth" proclaimed within the Bible. I certainly never found anything in the latter that conflicted with what I found in the former. I'm sorry you are unable to reach an accomodation with the evidenced truth.

 

[Hammster]

As you will, but you are doubtless aware that "truths" that are proclaimed in the face evidence are likely to be rejected. I can accept the "truth" evident in score or more scientific disciplines, or I can accept an unsubstantiated "truth" proclaimed by some chap on the internet. You might respond that you are simply repeating a "truth" proclaimed within the Bible. I certainly never found anything in the latter that conflicted with what I found in the former. I'm sorry you are unable to reach an accomodation with the evidenced truth.

Well, I’m not proclaiming a “truth”. I’m proclaiming the truth.

 

[dlamberth]

Not according to scripture.

Scriptures can't be wrong?

 

[dlamberth]

Well, I’m not proclaiming a “truth”. I’m proclaiming the truth.

It's not a truth that God's own Creation is telling us.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, I’m not proclaiming a “truth”. I’m proclaiming the truth.

I understand that you believe that. I understand that you have few if any doubts about it. I, however, cannot accept a truth that lacks meaningful evidence and requires an step of faith in order to accept it. I understand that faith is an important, a vital, concept to many. I wish such persons well in their faith based beliefs - in the meantime I'll stick with what the evidence shows.
One of my favourite Bible verses is "Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy Law". You see those things written in the Bible. I see them written in the rocks of the planet and the genes of the biosphere.

 

[Hammster]

Scriptures can't be wrong?

Nope.

 

[dlamberth]

It’s an option. But you have to have the correct presupposition.

The earth isn’t lying. You are just misreading the data.

Question: It's clear that the Yellowstone Hot Spot took a very long time (17 million years) to burn it's way from the Oregon/Nevada border to it's present location. The various eruption areas have been studied and documented. And that path is clearly seen on our maps. How is any of that misreading the data?

 

[Hammster]

It's not a truth that God's own Creation is telling us.

It’s quite obvious that the “truth” you think creation is telling us is incorrect. You are evaluating the data incorrectly.

 

[dlamberth]

Nope.

Well...when it comes to the Creation story, scripture does not line up with what the Earth is actually showing us.

 

[Hammster]

I understand that you believe that. I understand that you have few if any doubts about it. I, however, cannot accept a truth that lacks meaningful evidence and requires an step of faith in order to accept it. I understand that faith is an important, a vital, concept to many. I wish such persons well in their faith based beliefs - in the meantime I'll stick with what the evidence shows.
One of my favourite Bible verses is "Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy Law". You see those things written in the Bible. I see them written in the rocks of the planet and the genes of the biosphere.

Do you believe that science gives an accurate age of the earth, even though science involves observation?