- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,522
- 52,490
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's simple.If you accept that the idea doesn't stand up to science, then how can you call it history?
Hm. Maybe it was 4006 BC. I say you're wrong and the textbooks should say 4006 BC. Now what?It's simple.
The creation events took place in 4004 BC.
Thus it's history.
No one is arguing against science as a good and reasonable approach to understanding "this" world. But it is (and should be considered) the wrong tool for understanding matters of God...which supersedes matters of this world. This world is a realm [within] the greater realm of God, which makes for a difference of context: within this world all matters of time are relative, but within the overriding realm of God, time is not relative, and therefore, evolution must be considered as circumstantial [evidence] only: an educated guess, but a guess, nonetheless.Creationists do start at an assumed conclusion. They then work backwards, twisting facts to fit their conclusion. This is not science. Real science has done their homework. Evolution has been repeatedly tested and confirmed for 150 years. It's a fact.
What exactly has science assumed? I don't think you understand how science works.
Which is why creationism is NOT science. On the other hand, evolution is testable. It's supported by an abundance of facts and contradicted by none.
Is this your way of trying to shift the burden of proof? Creationism is your claim. Present your evidence.
When you say that this knowledge is limited to a certain number of people who have the capacity for such knowledge. You are claiming that only you and a select few have access to this.
What you said in this post is arrogant:
Hey Scott, instead boasting that you have access to knowledge that others do not, how about you present evidence for your claims. Or are you incapable of doing so?
Knowledge is demonstrable. Show us your evidence.
There is nothing more to be said then because fantasy wins every time.No one is arguing against science as a good and reasonable approach to understanding "this" world. But it is (and should be considered) the wrong tool for understanding matters of God...which supersedes matters of this world. This world is a realm [within] the greater realm of God, which makes for a difference of context: within this world all matters of time are relative, but within the overriding realm of God, time is not relative, and therefore, evolution must be considered as circumstantial [evidence] only: an educated guess, but a guess, nonetheless.
I am not trying to shift the burden of proof, but demonstrate your limited outlook...which is not an outlook at all, but a closed-circuit of circumstantial information. Your refusal or inability to look beyond your own understanding, has nothing to do with me proving anything... Does a sighted person have to prove the beauty of a sunset to the blind? No. However, the virtue of the blind, is that they know they are blind, and are inclined to take the sighted at their word. Ironically, being big on the value of demonstration...you, do not demonstrate such a virtue.
Yes, only some have the greater knowledge of God (obviously). But that is in no way an arrogant boast...anymore than the sighted are to the blind. You are just being spiteful, in addition to being unreasonable.
Let me get this straight: you want me to present physical evidence of spiritual truth, which you have thus far proven to be incapable of interpreting? Okay. Using the blind vs. the sighted analogy, tell me just how I would present the beauty of a sunset to the blind....and I'll get right on it. And...just who are you saying is "incapable", the sighted or the blind?
Is that what you truly believe?Hm. Maybe it was 4006 BC. I say you're wrong and the textbooks should say 4006 BC. Now what?
I'm very familiar with these folks and follow them often. But the point still remains...the few years of gaps that may be in the genealogies wouldn't add much more than a few generations more to the 6K years.I've already covered that in that we don't know how long the creation days were. Why don't you read some of the evidence for an Old Earth interpretation that includes scholars such as Gleason Archer, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Walter Kaiser, William Dembski, J I Packer, J P Moreland, Philip E Johnson, Francis Schaeffer, etc.
Here are examples of views of:
Blessings,
- Francis Schaeffer: http://geochristian.com/2008/12/05/francis-schaeffer-on-the-age-of-the-earth/
- A list of 'Notable Christians open to an Old-universe, Old-earth perspective' (with links to information about their views).
Oz
If the beauty of a sunset is a "fantasy", just because the blind cannot see it...then, yes, there is nothing more to say to you who draw that conclusion.There is nothing more to be said then because fantasy wins every time.
ummm...yes. That's why I pointed out that what you did, listing a set of notable Christians who happen to agree with your view, was an appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy and doesn't do anything to prove your view. I could just as well produce an equally impressive list of Christians and scientists who disagree with your view.I assure you that those I've mentioned have a high view of Scripture. Are you aware that an 'appeal to authority' is also the name given to a logical fallacy, which demonstrates fallacious reasoning. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
This world of time (creation), is limited to this world...but God is not limited to this world, but is timeless, and His timelessness supersedes this world.I'm not following you at all, ScottA, on what you are saying about God and time. In what way is it relative here and then absolute in God?
I've already addressed this point before.Nope, it's hypothetical. Will you answer my question?
I'm very familiar with these folks and follow them often. But the point still remains...the few years of gaps that may be in the genealogies wouldn't add much more than a few generations more to the 6K years.
ummm...yes. That's why I pointed out that what you did, listing a set of notable Christians who happen to agree with your view, was an appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy and doesn't do anything to prove your view. I could just as well produce an equally impressive list of Christians and scientists who disagree with your view.
Timeless. Yes. Illusion. Yes. What did you think "I am" means?Well, I may or may not have trouble with that, ScottA, depending upon what you men by timeless. If you mean that God cannot experience time, cannot change, cannot experience any successiveness, then no, I don't agree at all. A timeless God in that sense can never know us creatures who are in time. Furthermore, such a concept of timelessness argues that time is really one big illusion; for if we could see reality as it really is, and that means from God's perspective, there would be no time. Forget that. Time is too real for me to go for that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?