Creation, where's the Proof.

[euphoric]

4th April 2003 at 04:56 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #39



Yeah, okay.

I have to get out to my rabbits and things now.

Remember, we christians are your enemy and we are just out to decieve you into going to heaven with us (oh no, it'll be too crowded )

Christians aren't the enemy, and I don' think rank and file YECs are out to deceive anyone.  It's the professionals that are out to deceive and make a nice living at it apparently.

-brett

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

In your eyes....

Young earth creationism has been falsified over and over in eyes of everyone who is not totally committed to the particular interpretation of scripture that AiG adheres to.

Ken Hamm shows how the ''evidence'' can fit into a young earth.
Thats about all I have seen of AIG.

Ken Ham provides explanations that satisfy the followers of and donors to AiG, people with limited scientific knowledge who want to believe.  AiG's nonsense doesn't fool people with in-depth knowledge of the science involved and in my opinion it is not intended to.

While you may be able to fit some observations into a framework of a young earth there are no observations that can only be fit into a young earth framework and a myriad of observations that can't possibly fit into a young earth. Many have been discussed here. I have studied many of AiG's interpretations, what you call correct interpretations. In the cases that I have studied I find that they leave out much of the evidence, make use of mulitple ad hoc hypothesis and distort facts. Even many of their "correct interpretations" directly conflict with their "correct interpretations" for other observations they are trying to shoehorn into a young earth. There is simply no way to interpret the totallity of the world's geology, paleontology, biogeography and biodiversity in the young earth, worldwide flood framework.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[JohnR7]

4th April 2003 at 11:37 AM euphoric said this in Post #30



By that logic, Benny Hinn, Jim Baker and others did nothing wrong in bilking old ladies out of their social security checks.

Jim Baker made two mistakes that we all could learn from. First he bought into his own public relations hype. It is one thing if people think highly of you, but we have to be humble before God and we an not think to highly of ourselves.

The other problem was that he was pyramiding. He was actually convicted of this one and spent time in jail for it. We all need to be careful about trying to borrow against tomorrow. I know a church that just put up a education addition and the interest on the load is something like $8000 a month. For me, they should have waited tell they had the money to build, because they are throwing away all their money on interest now.

 

[JohnR7]

4th April 2003 at 11:52 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #36

Ken Hamm shows how the ''evidence'' can fit into a young earth.
Thats about all I have seen of AIG.

No one says he is inspired,

If he is not inspiried then what profit is there in that? Man's opinions often are not worth a dime a dozen.

 

[Freedom777]

While you may be able to fit some observations into a framework of a young earth there are no observations that can only be fit into a young earth framework and a myriad of observations that can't possibly fit into a young earth. Many have been discussed here. I have studied many of AiG's interpretations, what you call correct interpretations. In the cases that I have studied I find that they leave out much of the evidence, make use of mulitple ad hoc hypothesis and distort facts. Even many of their "correct interpretations" directly conflict with their "correct interpretations" for other observations they are trying to shoehorn into a young earth. There is simply no way to interpret the totallity of the world's geology, paleontology, biogeography and biodiversity in the young earth, worldwide flood framework.


This is what i'v been saying all along, which is, we all have the same facts but the conclusions of those facts are going to be interpreted through the glasses were wearing.
An evolutionist is always going to come to conclusions grom the facts that seem to support that framework. A creationist is always going to come to conclusions from the same facts evolutionists have but theirs will support a creationist framwork.
Ya where one set of glasses or the other. 2 distinct worldviews that can never harminize together becuase they are both built on different foundations. And thats the reality of science.

 

[euphoric]

4th April 2003 at 06:53 PM Freedom777 said this in Post #45 This is what i'v been saying all along, which is, we all have the same facts but the conclusions of those facts are going to be interpreted through the glasses were wearing.
An evolutionist is always going to come to conclusions grom the facts that seem to support that framework. A creationist is always going to come to conclusions from the same facts evolutionists have but theirs will support a creationist framwork.
Ya where one set of glasses or the other. 2 distinct worldviews that can never harminize together becuase they are both built on different foundations. And thats the reality of science.

We may be forced into interpretations by our limits as human beings, but not all interpretations are equal.  Interpretations can be falsified, as young earth interpretations have been over and over again.  Interpreations can also be rigorously tested and evaluated constantly in light of new evidence.  We can make predictions with our interpretations and test those predictions against new evidence.  We can also evaluate interpretations based on their consistency with other established interpretations in science.  Evolution and an old earth model pass all of those tests, young earth models do not. 

-brett

 

[Pete Harcoff]

4th April 2003 at 01:53 PM Freedom777 said this in Post #45

An evolutionist is always going to come to conclusions grom the facts that seem to support that framework.

The thing is, though, the "evolution" framework arose from conclusions about the facts, not the other way around.

 

[Freedom777]

Thats impossible all peoplr are biased.

 

[Freedom777]

Christ said, if you are not for me than you are against me.There is no neutral ground whether you believe it or not.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

4th April 2003 at 03:42 PM Freedom777 said this in Post #48

Thats impossible all peoplr are biased.

Wow, so now you are dictating history, huh? Amazing the number of hoops you have to jump through to maintain your position on this.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

4th April 2003 at 03:45 PM Freedom777 said this in Post #49

Christ said, if you are not for me than you are against me.There is no neutral ground whether you believe it or not.

Doesn't matter. We're all destined to be devoured by Cthulhu anyway.

 

[Taffsadar]

4th April 2003 at 08:42 PM Freedom777 said this in Post #48

Thats impossible all peoplr are biased.

Yes and the first evolutionists were christian... And many evolutionists are christian.

Is it just me or does it smell pro christian bias?

 

[Arikay]

Yeah, I mean, if this really is a religions battle between the atheists and the Theists, then the atheists are losing badly as they are agreeing with many of the theists.

Since many christians believe in evolution, why dont the atheists go find another theory to attach onto, I mean if this is a religions battle, these atheists really dont know how to fight it well.

 

[Nathan Poe]

4th April 2003 at 11:52 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #36



Ken Hamm shows how the ''evidence'' can fit into a young earth.
Thats about all I have seen of AIG.

Hamm chooses to quote-mine, ignore inconvenient facts, pander to popular misconceptions and play off the ignorance and loyalty of his audience. Using that methodology, one could argue the existence of Santa Claus.

No one says he is inspired, thats YOUR twisting again.
He has decided to help show that Gods word can be explained just as written in Genesis.

You seemed pretty quick to support his exorbitant salary with Scripture. Would you consider him a worthy representative of God's Word?

Or is he just another fallable human with a fallable theory, which you have no intention of investigating because it just so happens to rationalize the dogma you already believe?

If it offends you so, then stop looking at it.

Ignorance always offends me, especially when labeled "Holy -- Do not question, just shut your mouth and do as you're told." I have no choice but to look at it when someone tries to shoehorn it into my schools, my government, my science, and every aspect of my daily life.

YOu are right, only born again christians will go to heaven.
You act like your a separated from this by our choice, you are not.

I am separated from this by MY choice.

If the price of admission is ignorance of the world around us,

of ignoring the creation in favor of a book,

of denying the one great facility that separates us from the animals, knowledge (A trait God apparantly didn't want us to have, according to Genesis),

then you can keep it.

"An intelligent hell would be better than a stupid paradise." --Victor Hugo.

You can be on that road with us at any point you decide to.
We would love to have more company

Room for one more at the well of ignorance... hmmm.... looks like Kool-Aid to me.

 

[Follower of Christ]

"An intelligent hell would be better than a stupid paradise." --Victor Hugo.



FOC:
very arrogant ignorance in this comment.

Was this quoted to sound intelligent ?

Kind of like cutting off ones nose to spite ones face if you ask me.

 

[Follower of Christ]

4th April 2003 at 11:55 AM euphoric said this in Post #38





No Jim Baker and Benny Hinn don't make Hamm wrong, the fact that he takes two hundred grand from the ministry coffers makes him wrong.



-brett

This is where I have to draw the line.

I wonder how much some of your higher ups in the evolution league make every year. I dont see you crying to them about it.

I find it quite offensive that you are sticking your nose into what Ken Hamm makes.

Its just a cheap shot as you have run out of other ideas for an attack, so you feel that pointing out his income will prove your point.

It doesnt. It makes you look childish and for lack of a better word, ignorant.


If christians feel that they are giving Ken Hamm $200,000 to do what he does, it is NONE of your business at all.

And guess what, whether its justified in your eyes is NOT important to us in the slightest.

Grow up and go back to trying to prove some real issue

 

[Osiris]

Natha Poe has a point, and I think his Victor Hugo quote did fit nice with what he had to say and was not put there just to sound intelligent.
Imagine everyone in this world was christian, there would be no science -- we would forbid for anyone to study it or learn it because it will only make the student fall away from christendom. There would be no medicines, and people will easily get sick and die, and would be treated as a God-sent plague. We wouldn't be able to travel to other places as we do today, because people wouldn't have invented cars or airplanes. An example would be Amish Country in philadelphia...

 

[Osiris]

4th April 2003 at 08:47 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #56


If christians feel that they are giving Ken Hamm $200,000 to do what he does, it is NONE of your business at all.

Is that the same Jesus was paid?? I think Jesus did it for free, hmm, I think thats how it should be done, shouldn't it?? or at least that's how Jesus wanted it to be done... 

 

[Follower of Christ]

4th April 2003 at 08:52 PM Osiris said this in Post #57

Natha Poe has a point, and I think his Victor Hugo quote did fit nice with what he had to say and was not put there just to sound intelligent.
Imagine everyone in this world was christian, there would be no science -- we would forbid for anyone to study it or learn it because it will only make the student fall away from christendom. There would be no medicines, and people will easily get sick and die, and would be treated as a God-sent plague. We wouldn't be able to travel to other places as we do today, because people wouldn't have invented cars or airplanes. An example would be Amish Country in philadelphia...

You people are as fickle as evolution theory.
One minute you say that it was christians who were the scientists who founded some of this theory, and then you make a statement like that

 

[Follower of Christ]

4th April 2003 at 08:58 PM Osiris said this in Post #58




Is that the same Jesus was paid?? I think Jesus did it for free, hmm, I think thats how it should be done, shouldn't it?? or at least that's how Jesus wanted it to be done... 

"Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in Word and doctrine. For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox treading out grain," and, "The laborer is worthy of his reward." "
(1 Timothy 5:17-18 MKJV)




Funny it says ''double honor''.
Twice as much.

I wonder how many secular scientists make $100,000