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

[Astrid]

I have no objections to what people believe. I am unelaborately pointing out that it is a minority view within the ~40,000 Christian denominations.

Why do I disagree? Evidence!

Next you is gonna claim you've
some of that evidence that Pi ain't 3.

 

[dlamberth]

I’m not really going to start this conversation with you again.

The reason I replied is because your blaming the scientist. And I think it's unfair of you. Scientist aren't the bad guys. They are only reporting what the earth itself is showing of itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

In Kings there is a passage that clearly shows that the value of Pi is 3.

How would the reasonable person decide if the Bible account true?

By employing methods that God gave us to draw up initial blueprints effectively.

Namely, writing NTS* out in the margin of your Bible, next to that verse.**

* Not To Scale

** That verse:

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

(Let's see your academic skills iron this one out. Or, as I suspect, can science take a hike on this one? )

 

[AV1611VET]

Which do you think God prefers-
a person who faces facts ( including
facts about themselves) or one who
refuses to look or think?

That's pretty rich, coming from someone who put me (and others) on IGNORE to keep from learning anything.

 

[dlamberth]

What general rule would you apply
to determining that a passage is
True, approximate, metaphorical etc?

The passages of any sacred text that teach us how to become a more human, Human Being are the ones I take as Truth. Also the passages where God becomes a reality for a person I also take as True. Just an FYI: This is the essence and whole of my spiritual journey. Both can be taught and reach a persons heart as metaphorical stories. Approximate is when the teachings point towards those two trajectories, but don't necessary get you there.

 

[kiwimac]

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.

 

[sjastro]

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.

Well apparently the authority of the Bible wasn’t good enough when you introduced a mere mortal Jason Lisle into the thread as a blatant diversion because you wouldn’t provide a yes or no answer to the question of whether scientists can actually be Christians.

 

[dlamberth]

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

A person can be for God but at the same time not for ancient middle-eastern creation stories. Those are two completely different trajectories that are wrongly tied as an all or nothing argument.

 

[dlamberth]

Just think of the earth as artificial intelligence, and you'll understand.

It's a bit different for me, AV. For myself at least, I don't know why it is for you, but for me God has nothing to do with artificial intelligence.

The way I "experience" the Earth is more like a verb with the Creating Life Force of God running though and within every bit of it...forever and ever bringing forth new life forms.

 

[Hammster]

The reason I replied is because your blaming the scientist. And I think it's unfair of you. Scientist aren't the bad guys. They are only reporting what the earth itself is showing of itself.

All the while ignoring what the Creator had said about His own creation. If they’d stop doing that, their science would be better.

 

[Hammster]

No.

So God lied, in your view.

 

[Hammster]

Well apparently the authority of the Bible wasn’t good enough when you introduced a mere mortal Jason Lisle into the thread as a blatant diversion because you wouldn’t provide a yes or no answer to the question of whether scientists can actually be Christians.

I’m not sure why you have this false accusation. But you do you.

 

[Hammster]

A person can be for God but at the same time not for ancient middle-eastern creation stories. Those are two completely different trajectories that are wrongly tied as an all or nothing argument.

*historical account.

Fixed it for you.

 

[sjastro]

I’m not sure why you have this false accusation. But you do you.

Then answer the question whether scientists can be Christians.

 

[Hammster]

Then answer the question whether scientists can be Christians.

I gave an example of one. I assumed you could figure it out from there.

 

[Frank Robert]

All the while ignoring what the Creator had said about His own creation. If they’d stop doing that, their science would be better.

You make a lot of noise against science which makes zero claims about for or against any gods.

 

[sjastro]

I gave an example of one. I assumed you could figure it out from there.

I gave you my answer why Jason Lisle fails in his capacity as a scientist when advocating YEC.
Rather than giving you the opportunity of using red herrings such as Jason Lisle in this general question, I will ask you a specific question instead.
I am a scientist who is also a Christian, am I a true Christian yes or no?

 

[Astrid]

All the while ignoring what the Creator had said about His own creation. If they’d stop doing that, their science would be better.

Science cannot work with data that does
not exist. There is no God- data.

Also, the opinion that "god" told about a
flood etc is false, and anything but helpful.
As a working theory for geology, it's far worse
than useless.
In general, those who are congenitally
anti science are poorly qualified to
offer good suggestions.

Yours would be disastrous for science.

 

[kiwimac]

So God lied, in your view.

No, people understood at their level at the time.

 

[driewerf]

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.

No, I am not. I wrote exactly the opposite.
The way YOU guys describe your god fits that of a liar. You (plural, not you personal) are doing this.