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

[Hammster]

Yet again, you are saying that astronomy is wrong. Yet if I point this out, you deny it.

Saying that most astronomers are wrong because they buy into a faulty premise is not the same thing as saying that astronomy, as a science, is wrong. I’m really hoping that clears it up. It’s easy enough for my 10 year-old to understand.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
— 2 Timothy 3:16-17

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
— Hebrews 1:1-2

Good, I can quote scripture too:
Psalm 19, verses 1 - 4
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice[b] goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.

Either way, that is absolutely not an explanation for why the Bible, a book that was written by fallible and ignorant man (and that wording is in no way used in a derogatory sense at all), is given more importance over God's own creation, which He made Himself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good, I can quote scripture too:
Psalm 19, verses 1 - 4
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice[b] goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.

Either way, that is absolutely not an explanation for why the Bible, a book that was written by fallible and ignorant man (and that wording is in no way used in a derogatory sense at all), is given more importance over God's own creation, which He made Himself.

It's probably because "the Bible" specifically mentions God's Son as a focal point, whereas the Creation, in and of itself, only avails us of a more tenuous notion about God's handiwork.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's probably because "the Bible" specifically mentions God's Son as a focal point, whereas the Creation, in and of itself, only avails us of a more tenuous notion about God's handiwork.

I can see that, true. Still confuses me that, when God's creation is talked about, many creationists put the Bible above God's own creation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can see that, true. Still confuses me that, when God's creation is talked about, many creationists put the Bible above God's own creation.

Yes, you're right. Some of them do. But that's because they assume a 'top-down' epistemic structure by which to organize their axiomatic trains of theologizing. This places the Bible as the first consideration for anything and everything.

They were told they "have" to do it that way.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, you're right. Some of them do. But that's because they assume a 'top-down' epistemic structure by which to organie their axiomatic trains of theologizing. This places the Bible as the first consideration for anything and everything.

They were told they "have" to do it that way.

Yeah, I can get behind that reasoning.

 

[Hammster]

Good, I can quote scripture too:
Psalm 19, verses 1 - 4
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice[b] goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.

Either way, that is absolutely not an explanation for why the Bible, a book that was written by fallible and ignorant man (and that wording is in no way used in a derogatory sense at all), is given more importance over God's own creation, which He made Himself.

It actually does explain it. You just don’t care for the explanation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It actually does explain it. You just don’t care for the explanation.

No it doesn't and you need to stop projecting on people.

 

[Hammster]

No it doesn't and you need to stop projecting on people.

So you do care for the explanation? It’s one or the other.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you do care for the explanation? It’s one or the other.

I'd like an explanation that isn't just Bible quotes, since you can use the Bible to justify my position as much as you can yours.

So in your own words, if you please, why it is that, when God's own creation is being talked about, the Bible takes precedence over God's own creation, His actual work?

 

[Hammster]

I'd like an explanation that isn't just Bible quotes, since you can use the Bible to justify my position as much as you can yours.

So in your own words, if you please, why it is that, when God's own creation is being talked about, the Bible takes precedence over God's own creation, His actual work?

Because He explains what He did, and the timeframe in which He did it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because He explains what He did, and the timeframe in which He did it.

Except that what He 'said' (since I am not of the opinion that the Bible is the literal word of God. Inspired by God, but not written by Him, but written by man) is completely different to what we see in His creation.
So there's a conflict there.

 

[Hammster]

Except that what He 'said' (since I am not of the opinion that the Bible is the literal word of God. Inspired by God, but not written by Him, but written by man) is completely different to what we see in His creation.
So there's a conflict there.

So you are a higher authority than scripture. I can see why you’d believe that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you are a higher authority than scripture. I can see why you’d believe that.

I've got zero idea how you inferred that from what I said at all.

 

[Hammster]

I've got zero idea how you inferred that from what I said at all.

You don’t believe all of scripture. This means that you think you know where it’s wrong. That’s a position of authority.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You don’t believe all of scripture. This means that you think you know where it’s wrong. That’s a position of authority.

No, it's not. Saying that parts of the Bible do not match up with what we see in God's creation is just that: saying that parts of the Bible do not match up with God's creation. Which is not what would we see if God wrote the Bible, but what we would see if the Bible was written by men in an age of history where knowledge of the wider world was extremely limited.

Absolutism is not a good thing.

 

[Hammster]

No, it's not. Saying that parts of the Bible do not match up with what we see in God's creation is just that: saying that parts of the Bible do not match up with God's creation. Which is not what would we see if God wrote the Bible, but what we would see if the Bible was written by men in an age of history where knowledge of the wider world was extremely limited.

Absolutism is not a good thing.

On what authority do you proclaim that absolutism is never good?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

On what authority do you proclaim that absolutism is never good?

None. Just my observation based on the past, both in my own experiences and seeing the experiences of others. Plus also seeing that, in holding the absolutist view that the Bible is 100% correct, others make very... let's just say, ignorant statements about both the world and the Bible in the same breath.

So, why would God have the Bible say one thing, and yet then have His world that He created say something completely different? If we want to go down the absolutist route, then someone would be forced to say that in your scenario, that God created the world wrong to deliberately deceive people the people who study the world of God's creation for no true reason at all other than to deceive people.

Now, that's not a God I believe in or would even want to believe in. But if we take an absolutist view, such as the one you are espousing in your claims that science is wrong with phrases such as "any science that ignores that the earth was created approximately 6000 years ago, and gives us ages that are far beyond that timeframe, is incorrect" (post 1070 for point of reference), which is an absolutist statement, then you espouse a God who deceives. Because why would God allow a book to be made in His name and of His word that says one thing, and then create something by His own hand that shows and tells something completely different?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, why would God have the Bible say one thing, and yet then have His world that He created say something completely different?

Ask Eve.

She was there when Adam told her God took one of his ribs to make her.

Do you think she should have disbelieved Adam, because she couldn't find a scar?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ask Eve.

She was there when Adam told her God took one of his ribs to make her.

Do you think she should have disbelieved Adam, because she couldn't find a scar?

Except that we can't ask Eve. We can only ask the people who say that world is 6,000 years old and everything else is wrong.