Attention all Creationists...Help me plz!!!

[Aeschylus]

I didn't say that I knew everything, but what I object to is:

The way creationist lie about science, quite often this thro' a lack of knowledge of science rather than a delibarte intent to deceive, but it is still dishonest to make pronouncments on or to teach other people about subjects that you know next to nothing about.

 

[PotLuck]

I'm not going to lie about science but embrace it. Through science I enjoy more of God's creation than any man before me.

But what I object to is:
Molding the bible to fit the science, interpreting the data to fit the will of men who do not believe God created the universe as He inspired the author of Genesis to pen into a book to be shared as the Word of God with all men past, present and future.

What I don't object to is science in the hands of a believer willing to attempt reconciliation without compromising the bible or thinking that God talked to Moses in such a manner because he was too stupid to know otherwise. When there's something said about the data science collects that doesn't fit well with scripture there is little motivation to look at the results in another perspective other than to support the wisdom of man and not of God. If God gave us science to prove Himself wrong then we're targets of a very elaborate joke.

 

[Aeschylus]

The evidnce clearly shows that the literal six day cretaion is not true, so you are faced with 3 possibilties:

1) The creation story is not to be taken literally. Remember interpretaions of the bile come from man too and it is supremly arrogant to say that any one inetrpreation is God given.

2) God has delibrately deceived us by planting evidence contarty to the six-day creation.

3) Reject God

I choose number 1.

 

[PotLuck]

Oh, and BTW,
No offense but neither do I have all the answers.

 

[PotLuck]

Problem with #1 is that it's target to the oldest lie since the beginning of time:

|v1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
(OldT:Genesis 3:1)

Did God REALLY say... ?

 

[Aeschylus]

Yes, but you msut apply some common snese to reading the bible and in my expoerince literalists often cannot see the woods for the trees. What is important is the meaning and of what God said and the message that he conveys.

 

[PotLuck]

What would you have believed before Darwin entered the scene?
Curious.

 

[Aeschylus]

What would you have believed before Darwin entered the scene?
Curious.

I really can't answer that, as I don't know.

 

[PotLuck]

Something to think about.

 

[PotLuck]

The word "evolution" has come to be a major part of our sciences, even astrophysics, since Darwin presnted his theory back in the mid 1800s.

 

[L'Anatra]

I'm not going to lie about science but embrace it. Through science I enjoy more of God's creation than any man before me.

This isn't meant to be offensive, but why then do you reject so much of it?

But what I object to is:
Molding the bible to fit the science, interpreting the data to fit the will of men who do not believe God created the universe as He inspired the author of Genesis to pen into a book to be shared as the Word of God with all men past, present and future.

You realize Darwin was an Anglican? He certainly believed God created the universe.

What you're not taking into account is this: data exists regardless of "interpretation." The data supporting an Earth that is at least 4.5 billion years old is not difficult to find. The rocks are, put simply, that old. The Earth can be no younger, otherwise the data wouldn't exist. True statements do not have false consequences.

What I don't object to is science in the hands of a believer willing to attempt reconciliation without compromising the bible or thinking that God talked to Moses in such a manner because he was too stupid to know otherwise. When there's something said about the data science collects that doesn't fit well with scripture there is little motivation to look at the results in another perspective other than to support the wisdom of man and not of God. If God gave us science to prove Himself wrong then we're targets of a very elaborate joke.

You mention "compromising the Bible." But every Christian on Earth has their own personal and fallible interpretation of the Bible.

You're forgetting about the Creation itself. If you believe the universe is 6,000 years old, then you've put yourself in this position: God is a liar. That doesn't fly.

If continuous observation of the Creation doesn't jibe with the words you read in the Bible, then, as a Christian, you can be entirely sure that your interpretation of the Bible needs revising.

 

[Underdog77]

I didn't say that I knew everything, but what I object to is:

The way creationist lie about science, quite often this thro' a lack of knowledge of science rather than a delibarte intent to deceive, but it is still dishonest to make pronouncments on or to teach other people about subjects that you know next to nothing about.

Alright, what are your credentials? What degree(s) do you posess? What is your experience in the scientific field of study?

 

[Underdog77]

I'm not going to lie about science but embrace it. Through science I enjoy more of God's creation than any man before me.

But what I object to is:
Molding the bible to fit the science, interpreting the data to fit the will of men who do not believe God created the universe as He inspired the author of Genesis to pen into a book to be shared as the Word of God with all men past, present and future.

What I don't object to is science in the hands of a believer willing to attempt reconciliation without compromising the bible or thinking that God talked to Moses in such a manner because he was too stupid to know otherwise. When there's something said about the data science collects that doesn't fit well with scripture there is little motivation to look at the results in another perspective other than to support the wisdom of man and not of God. If God gave us science to prove Himself wrong then we're targets of a very elaborate joke.

Are we willing to subject the Bible to scrutiny because of data that may be incorrect or maybe incomplete? I don't believe science and the Bible butt heads too often and when they do, the conflict is easily solved by some study and common sense.

But if there is any data that causes us to raise an eyebrow, maybe its a) false b) incomplete (maybe we haven't uncovered all the data and a major piece, a decisive piece, of the puzzle has not been uncovered. Or maybe c) we're not sure how it fits. Maybe we have the data but are not looking at it the right way or maybe we just aren't seeing how it fits.

But all in all, we must hold the Word of God higher than the fallible practices of fallen men. It only makes more sense to believe the Word of the One who was there at the begining of this earth, the One who

 

[Aeschylus]

Alright, what are your credentials? What degree(s) do you posess? What is your experience in the scientific field of study?

I have a degree in physics (and half a degree in maths if that counts for anything) and I'm still studying for a masters.

But I'm not saying you need a degree in asubject to comment on it, yo should just have a reasonable knowledge of it.

 

[Sinai]

The evidnce clearly shows that the literal six day cretaion is not true, so you are faced with 3 possibilties:

1) The creation story is not to be taken literally. Remember interpretaions of the bile come from man too and it is supremly arrogant to say that any one inetrpreation is God given.

2) God has delibrately deceived us by planting evidence contarty to the six-day creation.

3) Reject God

I choose number 1.

Although many old earth creationists agree with you that the Bible's account of creation should not be interpreted literally, you should be aware that many OECs would not agree that a literal interpretation is not true. One can use a literal interpretation and still arrive at the billions of years that mainstream science says is the age of the universe.

Although the scriptures can be used to support either the YEC viewpoint that the universe is only a few thousand years old or the OEC viewpoint that the universe is billions of Earth years old, the Bible is emphatic that it was the one true eternal God who created the universe and that this same all-powerful and eternal God cares enough about us to provide for our redemption so that we may have everlasting fellowship with Him.