Creationists: Please, I need to hear you say it.

[caravelair]

Here are a couple of conclusions supported by the same evidence:

• The car travelled at an initial speed of 230 mph, then at the 3/4 mile mark, stopped (to refuel for example), waited for 30 minutes in line and then finished the journey at a leisurely 35 mph.
• The car travelled 35 mph to the 1/2 mile mark, sped up to 100mph for another 1/4 mile and finished at 60 mph

Naturally, as you correctly pointed out, these are all speculations unproven by the known evidence. Yet all fit the evidence and that is my point.

there is a difference between something that merely fits with the evidence, and something that is concluded as a result of the evidence. the 2 scenarios you listed are not based on the available evidence. therefore, they are not conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence.

 

[OccamsLaser]

• The car travelled at an initial speed of 230 mph, then at the 3/4 mile mark, stopped (to refuel for example), waited for 30 minutes in line and then finished the journey at a leisurely 35 mph.

• Sounds like my wife.

 

[Randall McNally]

Really, there is no conflict between true science and the Bible.

A spectacularly circular premise. All science that agrees with your intepretation of the Bible is "true science," the rest is not. And you know how to determine "true science" because the Bible is true.

 

[California Tim]

there is a difference between something that merely fits with the evidence, and something that is concluded as a result of the evidence. the 2 scenarios you listed are not based on the available evidence. therefore, they are not conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence.

Actually both scenarios are based on available evidence and are conclusions one could hypothesize based on personal interpretation. I have no idea how you could possibly dispute that.

 

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

You do not understand what Bible faith is. We do not have faith untell God tells us something. Then our faith is that we believe that He is going to do, what He says He is going to do. When my wife tells me something, then I have faith to believe that she is telling me the truth and that she is going to do what she told me that she was going to do. In other words, we have a covenant with God, just like a contract. If we keep out part of the agreement, then by faith we know that He is going to keep His part of the covenant or agreement.

I fairly well agree with this assertion. Scriptural faith comes from God.

 

[Randall McNally]

Actually both scenarios are based on available evidence and are conclusions one could hypothesize based on personal interpretation. I have no idea how you could possibly dispute that.

For one, young-earth geology has been falsified. Any other evidence that fits a young-earth hypothesis is irrelevant.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Well it didn't take long for this to get completely against the OP. Par for the course.

 

[caravelair]

Actually both scenarios are based on available evidence and are conclusions one could hypothesize based on personal interpretation. I have no idea how you could possibly dispute that.

The car travelled at an initial speed of 230 mph, then at the 3/4 mile mark, stopped (to refuel for example), waited for 30 minutes in line and then finished the journey at a leisurely 35 mph.

how is this based on the evidence? where does the evidence indicate that she travelled initially at that speed? where does the evidence indicate what she did at the 3/4 mile mark? where does the evidence indicate what speed she ended her journey with? if the evidence does not tell us about these things, then they are not based on the evidence. i have no idea how you can possibly dispute that.

 

[john crawford]

The evidence speaks for itself.

Surely you are speaking metaphorically here unless you are referring to the Biblical passage which states that "the rocks will cry out!"

 

[Event Horizon]

You do not understand what Bible faith is.

Are you saying having faith in the Bible is different than normal faith? What about Koran faith?

We do not have faith untell God tells us something. Then our faith is that we believe that He is going to do, what He says He is going to do. When my wife tells me something, then I have faith to believe that she is telling me the truth and that she is going to do what she told me that she was going to do.

That's not a very accurite analogy for the following reasons:

• You know your wife exists.
• Your wife is saying it by herself (and not through a person or people you do not know who is fallible or could be lying).

In other words, we have a covenant with God, just like a contract. If we keep out part of the agreement, then by faith we know that He is going to keep His part of the covenant or agreement.

Could you please describe what each side of the agreement is?

 

[Event Horizon]

Surely you are speaking metaphorically here unless you are referring to the Biblical passage which states that "the rocks will cry out!"

You lost me. What exactly are you talking about?

 

[john crawford]

So please, Creationists, I have one request to make. Please just use this thread to admit that no amount of evidence will ever sway you away from a literal reading of Genesis.

You see, at least then I can hear that your position is routed in faith and not in what I perceive to be ignorance.
h2

Thanks for the good opportunity for all of us to develop a better understanding of some of the differences between Biblical and non-Biblical perspectives.

It must be logically admitted at the outset that if there was no Bible then everyone would have to base their beliefs on some other form of knowlege or information. So when the Bible is disregarded or rejected as a reliable source of info and knowledge then one has to resort to other fundamental premises on which to construct a worldview, such as may be found in other religions or in ancient Greek and other humanistic premises and philosophies.

So it may logically follow that when any so-called "evidence" for evolutionary beliefs is presented to a Biblical literalist (who btw, may regard the Bible as solid evidence of God's existence,) the relative "ignorant" viewpoint and perspective of the non-Christian must be taken into account because they do not use the same standards of time and history or human nature which the
Christian is wont to do. At the same time though, most evos (theo or nontheo) seem incredulous at what they only percieve to be obstinacy on the part of many Christians in their constant attempts to refute or debunk evolutionism and claim that Christians are "ignorant" of evo science when the fact of the matter may be that many Christians simply choose not to believe in evo, despite the loud howls than one need not "believe" in evo in order to recognize and admit to the "scientific facts."

So faith (in God or nogod, the Bible or nobible) is definitely a factor when it comes to seeking an understanding of the different perspectives on what exactly constitutes 'evidence' or "facts," as I believe h2 is sincerely trying to do here. And may God bless him for the attempt.

Meanwhile, I can't wait to scurry off onto another thread in order to pick up the pace of attacks on all that evidentiary bunk the evos are still trying to cram down our God-given ignorant throats. Gaaahg!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Thanks for the good opportunity for all of us to develop a better understanding of some of the differences between Biblical and non-Biblical perspectives.

It must be logically admitted at the outset that if there was no Bible then everyone would have to base their beliefs on some other form of knowlege or information. So when the Bible is disregarded or rejected as a reliable source of info and knowledge then one has to resort to other fundamental premises on which to construct a worldview, such as may be found in other religions or in ancient Greek and other humanistic premises and philosophies.

Logical enough, leading us to the question, why should we consider the Bible to be a reliable source of info and knowledge? (At least, reliable in scientific matters; in terms of history, mythology, and theology, it has its moments)

So it may logically follow that when any so-called "evidence" for evolutionary beliefs is presented to a Biblical literalist (who btw, may regard the Bible as solid evidence of God's existence,)

Ah, but why is the Bible solid evidence for God's existence? Because it says so?

the relative "ignorant" viewpoint and perspective of the non-Christian must be taken into account because they do not use the same standards of time and history or human nature which the
Christian is wont to do.

Whoa.... slow down there. Not all Christians are literalists. Don't generalize.

At the same time though, most evos (theo or nontheo) seem incredulous at what they only percieve to be obstinacy on the part of many Christians in their constant attempts to refute or debunk evolutionism and claim that Christians are "ignorant" of evo science when the fact of the matter may be that many Christians simply choose not to believe in evo, despite the loud howls than one need not "believe" in evo in order to recognize and admit to the "scientific facts."

Because the "scientific facts" support evolution, and not one of them support Biblical literalism, at least in matters of origins.

"Belief," as a matter of personal choice, is one thing. But "belief" foisted upon others, for example in the classrooms, is quite another, requiring a certain level of solid evidence to support it.

You can "believe" in Biblical Literalism or that the world is made out of strawberry jam. Neither of which has any place being taught in a classroom under the pretense of "science."

So faith (in God or nogod, the Bible or nobible) is definitely a factor when it comes to seeking an understanding of the different perspectives on what exactly constitutes 'evidence' or "facts," as I believe h2 is sincerely trying to do here. And may God bless him for the attempt.

But what does faith in God have to do with Biblical Literalism? One can, often does, and (some would argue) must exist without the other.

Meanwhile, I can't wait to scurry off onto another thread in order to pick up the pace of attacks on all that evidentiary bunk the evos are still trying to cram down our God-given ignorant throats. Gaaahg!

And how exactly do you plan to "attack" all that nasty evidence?

Not with evidence of your own, I take it?

 

[aeroz19]

I think you take liberty with the assumtion that the "evidence" contradicts what the Bible says took place. I am a (YEC) creationist. I read all the reported "evidence" and I interpret the evidence from the perspective that the Bible teaches - and find a palpable harmony between what science discovers with that of the Bible.

And the reason you were able to do that was because...

The unbeliever must assume otherwise and thus interpets the data with a dramatically different bias. It's as simple as that.

Of this.

I know what you're implying: that Christians have inside information and that God reveals scientific truth to them, and that the unbelieving scientists are bound to be in error, as they are not connected with this source of truth.

However, science is not something you can bend and twist into the shape you want. It's a rigid body that does not conform to bias. It states the truth for itself.

What you're trying to do is deny the findings of science by those you claim to be in error, while believing in how the Creationists interpret (distort) science, and calling that science instead.

The attacks you refer to are not likely to be abated by any statement short of a denial of an omnipotent God to whom we all must be accountable. That is the agenda.

And wrong again.

How many times must we emphasize this? *sigh*

There is no agenda. Look at all the Christians out there who aren't literalists. They obviously aren't out to deny God. This is just a strawman or something, so that you don't have to face a fear. A fear that maybe you're wrong. A fear that you think might lead to the "truth" that God doesn't exist. Because if literalism is false, maybe God is not real either, right? That's really what this is all about.

But that line of thinking is false. Just because literalism is false does not mean that God does not exist. You'd have to do your own independent research to reorganize your faith system, but what I'm saying is true. Just because you give up literalism doesn't mean you give up on the existance of God.

In fact, in my experience of giving up literalism, I believed in God even more.

 

[aeroz19]

I think its terribly wrong to base your faith on evidence. It is true that faith must begin with evidence, but it should not be grounded in evidence. In fact Faith is evidence of its own. So when you compare Genesis and Science, I think theres a few things to keep in mind. Science teaches you cosmos exists on its own, this already inconsistent with your beliefs. Instead Science should be seen as a perspective on things, not as how they really are, but as how they appear to you. Literal time is among the notion of how things appear to you, so the danger here is trying to interpret the bible scientifically.
I believe in creation, and I do not think any scientific evidence can be inconsistent with genesis.

Science is not a perspecive. Science is proven and is based on fact.

 

[aeroz19]

Why would the evidence ever sway us? The Bible is the absolute truth. If we receive evidence in the way of new and additional information, then that is just going to help us to understand our Bible all that much more.

Also, the Bible is going to help us to understand the evidence. I feel sorry for people who try to understand "evidence" without using the Bible to guide them in that. I know it is because they are lazy and looking for a quick and easy way out from having to struggle to understand what the evidence really means.

Are people willing to admit that no amount of evidence will ever sway them from rejecting a literal reading of Genesis?

Excuse me, but it's a lot harder to painstakingly put together a theory from years of scientific research than it is to use some verses from the Bible to tell you what the evidence might mean.

Edit (for Nate's sake): I'm putting people on ignore now.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm starting a movement now. Those that state things that you have stated, I will begin to put on ignore until only those who have intelligent and accurate things to say are left.

Who's with me?

This forum will get cleared out pretty quickly if you start doing that.

Besides, that's precisely the type of people we need to educate.

 

[aeroz19]

A spectacularly circular premise. All science that agrees with your intepretation of the Bible is "true science," the rest is not. And you know how to determine "true science" because the Bible is true.

Right, they're using the Bible to probe science, not science to prove the Bible.

So the statement that "Science supports literalism" has no meaning.

 

[aeroz19]

Besides, that's precisely the type of people we need to educate.

Some folks cannot be educated because they do not want to be. Some folks have been here a long time and have put up a wall. What's the point? I will put those people on ignore.

 

[kedaman]

Science is not a perspecive. Science is proven and is based on fact.

If you could prove a theory, it wouldn't be science.