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

[driewerf]

I'm not sure what point you're making, but for the record, we don't have to ask science their opinion.

They'll come to us.

They'll march right across our courthouse lawns and tear our Ten Commandments down, then move on through our schools, demanding prayer and the Bible be censored, then on down to the hospital to set the record straight on abortions, and then back to the halls of higher academia to crank out another generation of disciples that will shipwreck our morals.

“They” aren’t scientist. “They” are citizens, including plumbers, nurses, scientists, retail workers, farmers, bus drivers, teachers, cleaners, dentists and so on.
And “they” would be right to remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse lawn.
In case your memory needs an update, I wrote this as response to a similar accusation.

Do you have the ten commandments on display at you front door? Do you have a nativity scene in your front garden? Do you have christian bumper sticker on your car? These are all legal, public and neither Satan, scientists nor the Supreme Court can't do anything about it. The Supreme Court will even confirm your right to display this per the same First Amendment that forbids the use of official buildings for displaying religious paraphernalia. You know this. Yet you selectively lament that the second is forbidden (somehow scientists and Satan are to blame) while staying silent about the first that is perfectly legal and guaranteed by the First Ammendment..

Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

There was a time when the Ten Commandments were welcomed ... and placed ... on our courthouse lawns. Until science eroded our morals, and the tares started demanding equal airtime for false gods. The next step, of course, was to just take the Ten Commandments down and make it illegal to post...

www.christianforums.com

kind regards,
driewerf

 

[Hammster]

I read a lot of grant applications
at one time.
If such as that showed up as a response, it
would be stamped "unresponsive",
and circular filed.

Okay.

 

[Hammster]

And that cancels the truth of it, in
your mind?

It had nothing to do with my post.

 

[Hammster]

The Bible is not a science book. And science is not about spiritual beliefs. It seems to me that the most balanced way are for those who find a place for both.

Jason Lisle has. And does so without making God a liar.

 

[Hammster]

Bringing the astrophysicist Jason Lisle who also happens to be a YECist into the discussion doesn't answer my question but it opens up a can of worms for you.
A bit of research reveals Lisle's PhD dissertation was "Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism" and he has also published numerous papers in legitimate scientific journals concerning convection cells in the sun.
This follows a remarkably similar path to another physicist and YECist Robert Vance Gentry where both individuals realized to publish in a reputable science journal they needed to leave their belief system at the door in which case their work would be no different if submitted by an atheist, a moderate Christian, Moslem or a Taoist to name a few.

As YECists they betray their training as scientists by engaging in blatant circular logic by putting the conclusion first and getting the data to fit the conclusion.
Lisle as an astrophysicist would know very well this a big no no in science where the evidence leads to the conclusion and not around the other way as in YEC.

And this is why I generally avoid bringing up specific arguments. Those who hate scripture and find no authority there will generally dismiss arguments from faithful Christians and find fancy ways to do it. So, I just stick with holding up the Bible as the authority. It’s a lot less complicated.

 

[Astrid]

Jason Lisle has. And does so without making God a liar.

Nobody can "make God a liar",
so thatsc not an issue.
People lie, distort, misrepresent
and misunderstand, though.

We note that one must do all of those to reconcile a literal reading of Genesis with the data of science.

Which is why I've pointed out that it is impossible
to be an educated yec and be intellectually honest

 

[Hammster]

Nobody can "make God a liar",
so thatsc not an issue.
People lie, distort, misrepresent
and misunderstand, though.

We note that one must do all of those to reconcile a literal reading of Genesis with the data of science.

Which is why I've pointed out that it is impossible
to be an educated yec and be intellectually honest

That’s exactly what’s been done here. It’s clear in scripture that there’s a literal 6 day creation. So-called scientists are saying that’s not true.

 

[Astrid]

And this is why I generally avoid bringing up specific arguments. Those who hate scripture and find no authority there will generally dismiss arguments from faithful Christians and find fancy ways to do it. So, I just stick with holding up the Bible as the authority. It’s a lot less complicated.

I dont hate scripture, so that doesn't include me.
Or anyone here. Claims against unknown persons
not present though do go with your "specific
arguments" preference.

As for dismissing anyone's arguments, I'd love
to hear a real argument against evolution or deep
time. Something based on fact, not emotion.
There's nothing "fancy" about facts.

Use of the term, as a way to dismiss any
arguments about the factual nature of
chosen scripture interpretations is, btw
and example of anti intellectualism, if you
actually mean what you say.

 

[driewerf]

Jason Lisle has. And does so without making God a liar.

Its not scientists that make god a liar. It is the description, that you christians give us of god that fits the description of a liar.

 

[Hammster]

I dont hate scripture, so that doesn't include me.
Or anyone here. Claims against unknown persons
not present though do go with your "specific
arguments" preference.

You are either for Him or against Him. There’s no neutral.

As for dismissing anyone's arguments, I'd love
to hear a real argument against evolution or deep
time. Something based on fact, not emotion.
There's nothing "fancy" about facts.

If this was true, you’d search it out. The arguments are there. Find out for yourself.

Use of the term, as a way to dismiss any
arguments about the factual nature of
chosen scripture interpretations is, btw
and example of anti intellectualism, if you
actually mean what you say.

I don’t know what you mean here.

 

[Hammster]

Its not scientists that make god a liar. It is the description, that you christians give us of god that fits the description of a liar.

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
— Exodus 20:11

Is that true?

 

[driewerf]

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
— Exodus 20:11

Is that true?

No.
And insisting on this to be true is incompatible with reality.
Hencde, the more you insist this to be literal true, the more YOU make god a liar.

 

[Astrid]

You are either for Him or against Him. There’s no neutral.

If this was true, you’d search it out. The arguments are there. Find out for yourself.

I don’t know what you mean here.

You fundamentalists and your binary
thinking! I'm not "against god".
And the TOPIC was "hating scripture".
There's nothing there for me to get
all emotional about.
And considering how you interpret it,
I'd say I appreciate it more than you do.

" if this WERE true" not "was".
It's funny - kind of- to see you
suggesting I am the one who doesnt
know my geology or the limp- brained
YEC attempts to dispute science.
There isnt a chance you are better
informed than I in this.

But take it to your credit- you seem
entirely sincere. That's better than
if you were well informed but were
without intellectual integrity.*

I will simplify my statement you didn't understand.

You claim God did things that did not happen.
Awful things. Do you figure he likes that?

* those who do know their science
know there are no fact based arguments
for literal Genesis.

Example- the yec Dr. K. Wise, PhD paleonyology:

"...even if all the evidence in the universe turns against yec, I will still be yec,mas that is what
the Bible seems to say"

The only fact there is how he chooses to thunk
things seem.

 

[Astrid]

No.
And insisting on this to be true is incompatible with reality.
Hencde, the more you insist this to be literal true, the more YOU make god a liar.

Yep.
And He might not be amused.

 

[Astrid]

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
— Exodus 20:11

Is that true?

Is " Jesus is a door" or 'lamb" true?
Are the parables true?

Is "Sea of Galilee" true?

Can somethung be true if it's not literally true?

 

[Hammster]

No.
And insisting on this to be true is incompatible with reality.
Hencde, the more you insist this to be literal true, the more YOU make god a liar.

And so you are calling God a liar, which is my point. The wording is unambiguous. And it’s not the only place where we see that, for scripture to be constant, the six days must be literal.

 

[Hammster]

Is " Jesus is a door" or 'lamb" true?

Yes, in the context that they are given.

Are the parables true?

They are presented as stories which contain a truth.

Is "Sea of Galilee" true?

Yes.

Can somethung be true if it's not literally true?

Maybe?!

 

[Frank Robert]

That’s exactly what’s been done here. It’s clear in scripture that there’s a literal 6 day creation. So-called scientists are saying that’s not true.

There are ~4000 ~40,000 Christian denominations many of which disagree with a literal 6day creation. I don't disrespect your belief, I am merely pointing out that there are many Christian interpretations of the bible.

 

[Astrid]

There are ~4000 Christian denominations many of which disagree with a literal 6day creation. I don't disrespect your belief, I am merely pointing out that there are many Christian interpretations of the bible.

It's actually more like 40,000.
And only one is inerrant.

 

[Astrid]

Yes, in the context that they are given.

They are presented as stories which contain a truth.

Yes.

Maybe?!

Interesting.
" Context" makes a lie the truth.