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.
Buzz, you might note that of the ten options listed in the poll, only the first one says the person answering the poll disbelieves the biblical account of creation.Buzz_Lightyear said:Arty, if you disregard what the Bible says or use a symbolic interpretation then where do you draw the line? I mean when God says something and means another thing then eventually you could come to the conclusion that it's all symbolic.
Also, what is the point in preaching to Christians that the age of the earth contradicts what the Bible says? We shouldn't be at all bothered with the age of the earth in all honesty, I am because I think these sorts of "theories" are what drives some good people away from God and those are the ones I try to dialog with, even though I'm still learning like all of us.
Whoopdy doChi_Cygni said:No - but I'm a research physicist with 20 + years of scientific investigation
First of all, I'm still trying to find out what the whole deal is with Hovind. Secondly, I don't just play off these guys. I see what they say, research it own my own, and then come to my own conclusions.and you are a 17 year old kid parroting Kent Hovind or some other person who deliberatlely lies on this issue.
Whose journals? Your resources or mine? If its yours then I would ask how did they get these dates? Did someone (like God) write it down so the scientists could know or did they various tests?Why not check the geological/paleontological journals yourself and look at the dates they get.
Radiometric dating involves making several assumptions. These assumptions can be twisted to come out with a date that you want. I believe it was Uranium-Lead testing that, with various combonations of assumptions, gave the age of the earth anywhere from 1.4 billion (I believe that's the right number) to 7000 years.artybloke said:The same is true of dating methods. If the hypothesis says that the earth is 6000 years old, but the dating method says 4.5 billion years old, until new evidence arrives to correct that date, the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Did everyone hear that correct? Artybloke is willing to subject the Bible to criticism rather than another religious belief that is 'supported' by fallible, subjective 'scientific' tests. That is what I consider "blind faith".I'm afraid that what a very strange and outmoded interpretation of the Bible says is the age means diddly squat to the evidence.
Better watch it friend, there ARE some in here who do believe this, I am not one of them.Buzz_Lightyear said:If the creation story is symbolic or whatever, is the flood story do you think?
Why do people think the 'minority' thing is worth anything? If in fact it is true (which I don't know but would seriously doubt because a) I doubt you are anyone has polled all of the Christians today and therefore cannot truly say that and b) although I'm not sure of this it is some logical speculatian, those Christians who live in third world countries and other areas who probably have not been infected by 'science' read the Bible and come to the YEC conclusion)artybloke said:Make that a small minority of the total number of Christians worldwide. Where I come from, I don't anyone who is a creationist.
Can't please everyone. I'm sure there are at least a few million who would consider your's offensive. I just consider it illogical but that's my view.Ron21647 said:I still find your signature offensive....
Ron
Riiiigggghhhhtttt....Chi_Cygni said:I'm sure some have but probably at the 0.001% level as opposed to the Creationist 75% level.
And its different because...? Lying is lying no matter the circumstances.By the way, what reason do academic scientists have to do this. Their personal salary is not coming by the the route of donations whereas the Creationists like ICR and AIG are funded directly by donations from the people they are conning.
Buzz_Lightyear said:Hi Arty,
When Jesus talked about the flood, it seemed like he was talking as if it actually happened, so it seems to me, but obviously not to you, which I find hard to understand. What else do you think didn't happen in the Bible?
Do you think other scientists are completely non-biased? I doubt it myself, I remember a report of a finding of a dinosaur limb that had red blood cells but the story seems to have been brushed under the carpet.
Have you ever considered that what the Bible says involving Genesis is spot on and so too is evolution? Apart from the bit when we evolved from a common ancestor to the ape. Can you give me some evidence that the vast amount of Christians think that Darwin was right and Genesis is wrong?
Hi Sinai,Sinai said:Buzz, you might note that of the ten options listed in the poll, only the first one says the person answering the poll disbelieves the biblical account of creation.
And only that first response and the three YEC options indicate a belief that modern mainstream scientific evidence contradicts what the Bible says.
There is a chance that the tools used to arrive to these results are flawed but can still consistantly arrive at the same results, doesn't mean the result is correct. It wouldn't be the fault of the scientist though that's why they cover themselves by calling their results concerning this topic "theories". I'm sure scientists are just doing their jobs.artybloke said:With regard to the "bias" of scientists (I don't consider YEC's to be scientists, by the way) what safeguards research is the system of peer review (including by people who disagree with your conclusions) and testing. All legitimate research has to be checked out by the scientist's peers before it can be published in a respectable scientific journal, and all research has to be capable of being repeated. That is, if you go through exactly the same proceedures as the original scientist went through, you will get the same results, if the original research was done correctly. If you get different results, then the original research is considered flawed, and the scientist has to go back to the drawing-board. This is actually academic practice across the globe for all scientists.
This is probably due to them relying on their logic based on the Bible, and science has no faith in the word of God.YEC's however never submit their research for peer review and testing, probably because they know that their results won't hold water.
Jesus was a perfect human being, like Adam before the fall. His wisdom was divine and I'm pretty sure that everything he said has significant meaning. Jesus didn't use the flood story as an illustration, he used it to campare it to the end times, now why would he use an event that didn't really happen to an event that will happen, or will it? It is like using an empty threat. The logic I have for the flood story happening is simple:As for the Bible: I don't think Jesus' opinion actually makes a great deal of difference. If Jesus was completely human his knowledge of things would be as human as anything else; in otherwords, limited. Anything else seems to me to be a challenge to the incarnation: if Jesus knew everything, he wasn't really human, but only looked human. Arianism, in other words. Anyway, he only used the flood story as an illustration; he made no statement as to its historicity. If I say two people in love are like Romeo and Juliet, do I have to believe in a literal Romeo and Juliet, ot can I just be using a literary allusion? This is what Jesus was doing: refering to a story his hearers knew as an illustration of what he meant.
Jesus parables were obvious parables as he said before he said them, "let me tell you a story/parable"And please note, note taking the Bible literally at certain points is not disagreeing with it. It's taking serious note of its literary genre and reading it in the light of that. I don't take the parables as historical events; and I don't take ancient near-eastern poetry and fable as history either. Which is what the creation and flood stories are.
Yes, I mentioned that this area of discussion has little value due to the lack of bones/fossils found.I've heard about the dinosaur blood too, by the way. I suspect that later research modified the original conclusions; this is what happens in science. It entirely depends on the evidence, so the more information we have the better the ensuing theory. Also, you have to remember that popular science magazines are often not peer-reviewed and sometimes their journalistic instincts override their scientific ones. Sometimes there are big splashy headlines about the discovery of this or that, or the solving of this problem or that, that on closer inspection prove to be rather more complicated than it first appeared.
stating your own belief is a lot different from running down someone elses. I am not OEC, I am TE. But I also find the use of the "N" word offensive even though I am white.Underdog77 said:Can't please everyone. I'm sure there are at least a few million who would consider your's offensive. I just consider it illogical but that's my view.
Jesus was a perfect human being
His wisdom was divine
This is probably due to them relying on their logic based on the Bible, and science has no faith in the word of God.
Why would Moses write a fictious story about a man that did exist? It would be lying, which I'm certain Moses wouldn't have done, therefore the flood did take place, I think.
Being as I'm a preterite who thinks the end-times are a myth invented to frighten people into believing, I don't think so. Besides which, if I say that Arnold Schwarzeneggar has a Herculean physique, am I not comparing a real person with a mythical one? (Mind you, which is the real oneJesus didn't use the flood story as an illustration, he used it to campare it to the end times, now why would he use an event that didn't really happen to an event that will happen, or will it?
Jesus parables were obvious parables as he said before he said them, "let me tell you a story/parable"
Theories, as used by scientists, does not mean this. regardless of the dictionary definition. If you go to any science textbook, even one used in junior high school, the first chapter will cover scintific method and theory.Buzz_Lightyear said:Hi
There is a chance that the tools used to arrive to these results are flawed but can still consistantly arrive at the same results, doesn't mean the result is correct. It wouldn't be the fault of the scientist though that's why they cover themselves by calling their results concerning this topic "theories". I'm sure scientists are just doing their jobs.
<snip>
Thanks
Hi Ron,Ron21647 said:Most people seem to use the word as in the old tv show, "Columbo". But when Lt Columbo would say "I have a theory about this", what he really meant was "hypothesis". It didn't become a theory until it was proved at the end of the show. Up until that point, it could have been wrong, and sometimes was, his first suspect in the show did not always turn out to be guilty. Once it was proved, then it was a theory. A theory is still never 100% proven and correct, new evidence might come to light which frees a convicted criminal. But it is the best explanation for the existing evidence.
Ron
But surely the key to all this is putting your faith in God that at least the Gospel writers works didn't get corrupted and thus the geneolgies proove something
Buzz_Lightyear said:Hi Ron,
Thanks for this. A scientific theory may be more heavily scrutinized then say a Columbo style theory, but it still remains a theory at the end of the day.
Hi Arty,artybloke said:Well, they do prove something. Just not that it's factual. Again, the suggestion seems to be that using a fictional or imaginative element is "corrupted": that isn't the case at all. What the writers were doing (using a common technique of the time) was connecting Christ by association to the Royal line of David, because that was the most important line from which the Messiah was said to come. There would have been no way of checking its historicity, and nobody would have bothered to check it, because it was the symbolic meaning that was important - and the fact that Christ was, like everyone else, (that, in otherwords, he was "like us in all things" except sin) a "child of Adam" was also important to establish to make his redemption possible.
Again, the truth of it is symbolic, not factual. In ancient times, before science came on the scene, they didn't make that distinction. All truth was symbolic.
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?