Is belief for/against creationism important for salvation?

Does believing for or against creationism affect salvation?

  • Yes

  • No

  • I don't know


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The bible says that Cain was the first born, and Abel was his brother. What the bible doesn't tell us is exactly how many other children Adam and Eve had before Seth was born. So we can take a literal view of things, it's just that certain things are left out. If you read through the OT particularly, most women born to a family are missing.
Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, "God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him."

It sounds to me as if Seth was the next child born to Eve. But this was after Cain had got married.

Gen 5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
4 The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters.

They had other sons and daughters, after Seth.

So a literal event cannot have a meaning as well? Adam literally married Eve, and the Lord used this to illustrate a point. The Lord also used a farmer in a parable, does that mean that farming is not literal?
You seemed to think the only possible meaning of the rib was a literal description of thoracic surgery, I showed you the allegorical meaning both Moses and Jesus saw.

The snake wasn't a real snake, it was Satan. Fruit cannot give everlasting life, at least according to Jesus in John 6:27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, I cannot see a connection between God performing surgery on Adam and cloning Eve from a rib with men and women becoming one flesh during sex. It just doesn't follow. Unless the story was meant as an allegorical description of the unity of man and woman.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Assyrian is so desperate, he keeps raising the wife for Cain issue, as if there is any problem there. Cain and Abel were adults when the murder occured, and Adam and Eve didn't just stop multiplying while those two boys grew up. Adam had sons and daughters. Seth was born when Adam was 130, and this was after the death of Abel. The murder may have occured only a few weeks or years prior to this. Adam may have had grandchildren and greatgrandchildren by the time Cain went to the land of Nod.
The first child we read of Cain having is Enoch, born to the mysterious woman he married. Where did she come from? Was she Cain's daughter to a previous wife? But where did that wife come from? We are given the genealogies for both Cain and Seth. Wouldn't Genesis mention it if there were children of of Abel around too? And why did Eve think when Seth was born that God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, if there were still children of Abel alive? And who would Abel have married? We only read of other sons and daughters being born to Adam and Eve in the next chapter, after Seth was born and after Cain raised his family.

The writer clearly assumed there were lots of other people around.

But no matter, Assyrian is always seeking contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible and the Bible to him is always wrong and Evolution is always right.
The irony is that people who claim to follow the plain meaning of the text spend their time trying to avoid what the story is plainly saying. But misinterpretation of scripture will lead to contradictions and inconsistencies. As we begin to appreciate what it actually means, the apparent contradictions start to disappear.

 
Upvote 0

Floodnut

Veteran
Jun 23, 2005
1,183
72
70
Winona Lake, INDIANA
Visit site
✟1,724.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
snipped
There can be no questioning of this position for that person automatically moves in a state of unbelief which is pretty much the same thing as unsaved without using those words.

i think your response forms a complete answer to the OP.
no. only YECists can be saved.
for no one else takes the Bible in the proper way.
snipped
I have stated directly and plainly that one does not need to be YEC to be saved, but you insist on rejecting my plain statement and twisting my position to the exact and direct opposite of what I stated. You make the same error with Scripture and it is malicious.
God said he created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days. You are disbelieving God when you reject that. But thank God he has overcome your unbelief so that you are still able to believe in the atonement and the resurrection, and therefore you have salvation who so believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rmwilliamsll
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
I have stated directly and plainly that one does not need to be YEC to be saved, but you insist on rejecting my plain statement and twisting my position to the exact and direct opposite of what I stated. You make the same error with Scripture and it is malicious.
God said he created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days. You are disbelieving God when you reject that. But thank God he has overcome your unbelief so that you are still able to believe in the atonement and the resurrection, and therefore you have salvation who so believe.

this is the first time i've seen this expressed.
i apologize for saying that you don't believe anyone but YECists are saved. just because we hear it so often doesn't mean you are saying it. i'll take unconsistent over lost any day *grin*
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
this is the first time i've seen this expressed.
i apologize for saying that you don't believe anyone but YECists are saved. just because we hear it so often doesn't mean you are saying it. i'll take unconsistent over lost any day *grin*

I'd hate to stir up havoc, but I really don't see why an apology of the sort is necessary. The words Floodnut uses are very specific Biblical terms which always apply strictly to the unsaved:

Floodnut said:
There IS but ONE true meaning of the text. You insist that YOUR ludicrous twisting multiple choice options constitue the correct approach. Anything to evade the plain and simple truth. You remain in unbelief concerning the Scriptures and the power of God. You also insist on your erroneous and anti-biblical interpretation of the Word of God proclaimed in nature. You look at the natural world and see billions of years in direct contradiction to the absolute and final authority of the Scripture.

You go from "a text has multiple MEANINGS" to confuse the fact that it can have multiple applications. Then you insist that ONE MEANING in particular is impossible, that is the simple plain literal sense. You allow all the allegorical, prophetical, and symbolic approaches while you have rejected the ONE TRUE MEANING. You are in unbelief about the Scriptures in practical reality regardless of which creed you hold in principle.

What is unbelief? Unbelief, in the Bible, is always associated with non-Christians. I say this with my rudimentary, flawed, and figurative interpretive knowledge of the Bible; Floodnut, who is surely well-versed in such matters, must know this much better than I do. But unbelief is a technical term and in the Bible is never once applied to anyone who is currently believing in the Lord:

Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword...chtype=any&version1=31&spanbegin=1&spanend=73

Really, avoiding the technical terms of Scripture is very simple. If Floodnut just wants to say that we happen not to believe in a particular facet of what he holds to be Christianity, there are a lot of synonyms. "You'll never be convinced." "You're always doubting." (which it is perfectly biblical for fellow brethren to do.) "You just don't see what you're trying to believe in." "Why are you being so contrary?"

But the word unbelief is loaded, so much that to use it repeatedly and consistently is bordering on the edge of excommunicating one's brothers. It is similar to the use of the concept of the "fool". Modern English renders "fool" as someone simplistic or uneducated in intellectual matters. A fool might be called a fool because he thinks that 1+1=3. But the word "fool" used in the context of Judeo-Christian thought, and especially in discussions about Scripture, implies someone who is not only wrong-headed, but has a wrong heart and lives life wrongly. The fool in the Bible is a fool because he says in his heart "there is no God", disregards living according to God's laws, follows the adulterer into her lair, and ultimately dies a wretched victim of sin.

Floodnut said:
God said he created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six days. You are disbelieving God when you reject that. But thank God he has overcome your unbelief so that you are still able to believe in the atonement and the resurrection, and therefore you have salvation who so believe.

Really, I think it's quite unbiblical to propose such a method of salvation. Unbelievers simply go to hell. There is no record in Scripture that a person can have God impose a belief in the atonement and resurrection, remain an unbeliever everywhere else, and still go to Heaven. Unbelievers rescued from unbelief completely reject unbelief, or at the very least know enough of their unbelief to know that it is completely wrong, even if they are not strong enough to escape it yet. John 3:16 does not read "that whoever believed that He died for their sins and rose three days later should not perish ... " Ananias and Sapphira surely believed in the atonement and resurrection, but that did not save them from an obvious display of divine wrath when they tried to lie to the Holy Spirit. And when Simon Magus wanted to sell the Holy Spirit, his belief in the atonement and resurrection didn't matter to Peter who quite literally told him to go to hell with his money.

No, I'm not angry. But words like "unbelief" and "fool" are very powerful when used in the right places ... and their tang is dissipated when they are thrown around. Champagne is good for anniversaries and New Years' and F1 podium finishes; if everybody everywhere in the world could drink champagne any time they wanted it wouldn't take long before everybody was sick of it. And so I would advise everyone:

Keep words on a short leash: easily recalled at a moment's notice.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
What I have a problem with is that the Bible says that God created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Is there any evidence for thousands/millions of years instead of 6 days? Let's start with that.

OK, lets start with that.

First, we have sedimentation rates. Observable today, sedimentation is a slow process that results in the gradual build up of strata of rocks containing period specific fossils over extremely long periods of time. These starta can be folded and ruptured by techtonic movements, and we see them move in ways in exactly the way they would move as predicted by this theory

Now, with in these layers, we find a timeline of fossils and datable minerals with standard halflives. Without exception, what are believed to be older forms are found lower in the strata than what are believed to be newer forms. This strongly suggests that strata atre laid down over time, rather than in one brief event, as the time line they show seems to cover a considerable period. If we were looking at strata laid down by one single flood event, we would expect to see all varieties of animals throughout all strata. However, what we see are earlier animals lower, and contemporary with the same groups of animals and time period through out the world, and more recent animals, also contemporary with others in later strata. I hope I am explaining this coherently, but I am a little pushed for space. If you would like direction to further reading on any of these points, just ask.

Anyway, observed sedimentation rates, tie in with elemental halflife dating, which tie in with advancing development of fossils through time, to strongly suggest that the earth is old, and the creatures on it have been devloping for a long time. Non of what apears in the geological record is what we would expect from a 6 day creation.

Then, to move out into the universe, and judge its age...

We know the speed of light,299792458 m / s. Scientifically, we call this "C" and it is always a constant when moving in space. Now, there is a thing called paralax. Basically, it is a form of trigonometry used for measuring distances. It is, essentially, the same process by which binocular vission allows us to measure distance. When used by astronomers with finely tuned instruments, it gives us a very good estimate of galactic distances, and those distances are VAST. By using paralax, and special stars called Cepheid variables, we are able to quite accurately ascertain the distances of objects really vast differences away. The point here, is that we know the speed of light, and we know that there are objects further away that light has taken more than 6000 years to travel across. This also strongly suggests that the universe is older than 6000 years.

If the universe were only 6000 years old, we should only be able to see for 6000 years in any direction, because light from further away simply hasn't had the time to reach us yet. But look up at night, and this is not what we see. Further, we see stars in the process of being made, burning, and dying, all before our telescopes, and across a huge range of time (i.e. further away, the longer ago, speed of light again, right?) and this again indicates more than 6000 years, and more than 6 days of creation. Otherwise all the stars would be about the same age, having been made within a six day period right? But again, thats not what we see.

So, theres a start. Lots of evidence for an older than 6000 year universe, and more than 6 days of creation, observable and repeatable and free to any one to verify all by themselves through simple experiments.

To continue to believe in 6 day, 6000 year old creation, means you have to start introducing "special" arrangements, like physical laws changing, and God creating things in such a way as to be deliberately misleading. Now, there is no way to prove that ISN'T what happened. However, how many special arrangements do you want to work into your theory of cosmology before it just gets silly? Especially when the simpler explaination requires NO special arrangements.

Would you like more information? Would you like more examples or details? Do you have any other specific questions about specifics of cosmology or evolution I can help yo with?
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
regarding "special" considerations (God changing physical constants etc.) to allow 6 day creation over the scientifically regarded theories more widely accepted, I think Carl Sagan's invisible Dragon story tells it best...

The Dragon In My Garage
by
Carl Sagan


"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.
Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all. Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
 
Upvote 0

furry001

Obedience is better than sacrifice
Nov 14, 2005
1,179
29
47
England
Visit site
✟9,241.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
OK, lets start with that.

First, we have sedimentation rates. Observable today, sedimentation is a slow process that results in the gradual build up of strata of rocks containing period specific fossils over extremely long periods of time. These starta can be folded and ruptured by techtonic movements, and we see them move in ways in exactly the way they would move as predicted by this theory

Now, with in these layers, we find a timeline of fossils and datable minerals with standard halflives. Without exception, what are believed to be older forms are found lower in the strata than what are believed to be newer forms. This strongly suggests that strata atre laid down over time, rather than in one brief event, as the time line they show seems to cover a considerable period. If we were looking at strata laid down by one single flood event, we would expect to see all varieties of animals throughout all strata. However, what we see are earlier animals lower, and contemporary with the same groups of animals and time period through out the world, and more recent animals, also contemporary with others in later strata. I hope I am explaining this coherently, but I am a little pushed for space. If you would like direction to further reading on any of these points, just ask.

Anyway, observed sedimentation rates, tie in with elemental halflife dating, which tie in with advancing development of fossils through time, to strongly suggest that the earth is old, and the creatures on it have been devloping for a long time. Non of what apears in the geological record is what we would expect from a 6 day creation.

Then, to move out into the universe, and judge its age...

We know the speed of light,299792458 m / s. Scientifically, we call this "C" and it is always a constant when moving in space. Now, there is a thing called paralax. Basically, it is a form of trigonometry used for measuring distances. It is, essentially, the same process by which binocular vission allows us to measure distance. When used by astronomers with finely tuned instruments, it gives us a very good estimate of galactic distances, and those distances are VAST. By using paralax, and special stars called Cepheid variables, we are able to quite accurately ascertain the distances of objects really vast differences away. The point here, is that we know the speed of light, and we know that there are objects further away that light has taken more than 6000 years to travel across. This also strongly suggests that the universe is older than 6000 years.

If the universe were only 6000 years old, we should only be able to see for 6000 years in any direction, because light from further away simply hasn't had the time to reach us yet. But look up at night, and this is not what we see. Further, we see stars in the process of being made, burning, and dying, all before our telescopes, and across a huge range of time (i.e. further away, the longer ago, speed of light again, right?) and this again indicates more than 6000 years, and more than 6 days of creation. Otherwise all the stars would be about the same age, having been made within a six day period right? But again, thats not what we see.

So, theres a start. Lots of evidence for an older than 6000 year universe, and more than 6 days of creation, observable and repeatable and free to any one to verify all by themselves through simple experiments.

To continue to believe in 6 day, 6000 year old creation, means you have to start introducing "special" arrangements, like physical laws changing, and God creating things in such a way as to be deliberately misleading. Now, there is no way to prove that ISN'T what happened. However, how many special arrangements do you want to work into your theory of cosmology before it just gets silly? Especially when the simpler explaination requires NO special arrangements.

Would you like more information? Would you like more examples or details? Do you have any other specific questions about specifics of cosmology or evolution I can help yo with?

Thanks for this. It's very interesting. Although, I do have one question regarding it. How long does the heat and light from the sun take to arrive on planet earth?

I notice that many of the things that you accept as fact are suggestions (ie, strata being laid down over time). Because man cannot state as fact (ie, proven and totally irrefutable) is it possible that these suggestions could be incorrect?

Also, you are assuming that God created everything brand spanking new (ie, completely young and immature), yet Adam and Eve were able to reproduce (which means that they must have been adult, or late teens, rather than babies), we do not read that God created seeds but that He created trees (ie, fully grown) animals rather than eggs and cubs/puppies. It stands to reason that He would not necessarily create a universe that was young.

When Jesus Christ was here on earth, He created wine out of water, which was then proved to be the best wine (ie, mature rather than freshly fermented).

What do you think?

Could you give me the links that I can read further on what you have written?

Thanks:wave:
 
  • Like
Reactions: New Creation
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
Thanks for this. It's very interesting. Although, I do have one question regarding it. How long does the heat and light from the sun take to arrive on planet earth?

About 8 and a half minutes.

I notice that many of the things that you accept as fact are suggestions (ie, strata being laid down over time). Because man cannot state as fact (ie, proven and totally irrefutable) is it possible that these suggestions could be incorrect?

*sigh* yes, they are suggestions and theories, in the technical sense that nothing can EVER be proven 100%. They are, however, very, VERY well supported theories by vast amounts of evidence and testing in accord with the scientific method by literally millions of scientists over hundreds of years. So, while I'm not going to use the term "proved"... its only because I don't wish to be intellectually dishonest. As I said earlier, gravity is only a theory, and it is only SUGGESTED that water is always wet. However, this does not mean that we should go around jumping out of windows, or without towels. Do you see the difference between the POSSIBILITY of flaws, and ACTUAL flaws? This is actually the great strength of science, that it is open to change and revision. However, almost always those revisions are from something on the right track, to something even CLOSER to the right track...

Also, you are assuming that God created everything brand spanking new (ie, completely young and immature), yet Adam and Eve were able to reproduce (which means that they must have been adult, or late teens, rather than babies), we do not read that God created seeds but that He created trees (ie, fully grown) animals rather than eggs and cubs/puppies. It stands to reason that He would not necessarily create a universe that was young.

Like I said, how many special allowances do you with to make? God COULD have created the universe 3 seconds ago, with the appearance of everything as old as it appears to be. He COULD have created it 90 Billion years ago, with the first 80 billion years going r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y... But science deals in evidence and what can be observed. And the evidence suggests approx 14 billion years with a 5 billion year old Earth. This requires no special allowances for changing physical laws, Theistic intervention, magic Angels paining the sky black or anything else. Thus, becase it is the simplest explaination, it is the one most likely to be correct.

When Jesus Christ was here on earth, He created wine out of water, which was then proved to be the best wine (ie, mature rather than freshly fermented).

Yep, and this is a miracle. So look, feel free to believe in a totally supernatural, miraculous universe that was created to appear old, but is only 6000 years old. I mean, thats fine. However, if you choose to believe this (as is your God given right) be aware that it is a belief based on FAITH, not SCIENCE. And, as such, while you have every right to believe what you want, it is unreasonable of you to expect others to share your belief just because you say so, unless you can provide evidence to back it up. And, in terms of eidence, the 14 billion year old universe has a lot more evidence than the 6000 year old one.

Could you give me the links that I can read further on what you have written?

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

http://www.c14dating.com/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-geochronology.html

http://www.grisda.org/origins/09028.htm

http://www.unh.edu/esci/wmsmith.html

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/2003/glossary/uniformitarianism.html

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D59C8-5512-1CC6-B4A8809EC588EEDF

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/MilkyWay/cepheid.html

I sincerely hope this is of some help to you. Please do not hesitate to ask about anything else :)
 
Upvote 0

Citanul

Well, when exactly do you mean?
May 31, 2006
3,420
2,618
45
Cape Town, South Africa
✟206,708.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for this. It's very interesting. Although, I do have one question regarding it. How long does the heat and light from the sun take to arrive on planet earth?

About 8 minutes.

I notice that many of the things that you accept as fact are suggestions (ie, strata being laid down over time). Because man cannot state as fact (ie, proven and totally irrefutable) is it possible that these suggestions could be incorrect?
It is possible (although unlikely), but in order to disprove them, you would have to provide an alternative explanation that is supported by the observed evidence.

It stands to reason that He would not necessarily create a universe that was young.
Well, if it walks like a duck...

If every test shows that the universe is old, then how can you say that it isn't? If it looks old to us then it must be old unless you can show otherwise.

And why would God create a universe that was young but looked old? That notion comes across as though God was trying to deceive us, unless someone can provide another satisfactory explanation.

Could you give me the links that I can read further on what you have written?
Try http://www.talkorigins.org/
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

furry001

Obedience is better than sacrifice
Nov 14, 2005
1,179
29
47
England
Visit site
✟9,241.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, if it walks like a duck...

If every test shows that the universe is old, then how can you say that it isn't? If it looks old to us then it must be old unless you can show otherwise.

And why would God create a universe that was young but looked old? That notion comes across as though God was trying to deceive us, unless someone can provide another satisfactory explanation.

What about a tree? The bible says that God created seed bearing trees, old looking and yet young. If God could create a tree to look old, He could create a planet and universe that looked old but were young. All science is able to do is say "well, it looks old".

I am trying to get my head around these things, so will look at all the links provided. Will let you all know my thoughts.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
All science is able to do is say "well, it looks old".

Thats right. And thats all science claims it does. However, scientifically minded people get frustrated with people disregarding all the evidence of it looking old, all the lifetimes worth of research by millions of scientists, in favor of a book written by people who didn't even have simple microscopy... Like I said, if you want to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old based on Genesis, that is totally your right to do so. However, please do not expect anyone else to accept your belief as fact based purely on what you believe.

The scientific side of the discussion has vast evidence that the world is older than 6000 years,and as a bonus, can make sense of Genesis as allegory. The young earth side of the discussion ONLY has Genesis, nothing more. Can you see how the scientific side can get frustrated?
 
Upvote 0

furry001

Obedience is better than sacrifice
Nov 14, 2005
1,179
29
47
England
Visit site
✟9,241.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thats right. And thats all science claims it does. However, scientifically minded people get frustrated with people disregarding all the evidence of it looking old, all the lifetimes worth of research by millions of scientists, in favor of a book written by people who didn't even have simple microscopy... Like I said, if you want to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old based on Genesis, that is totally your right to do so. However, please do not expect anyone else to accept your belief as fact based purely on what you believe.

The scientific side of the discussion has vast evidence that the world is older than 6000 years,and as a bonus, can make sense of Genesis as allegory. The young earth side of the discussion ONLY has Genesis, nothing more. Can you see how the scientific side can get frustrated?
Yes I can, and that's why I am not dismissing it completely. However, God tells me one thing, man tells me something else. I would never push what I believe on others. I do not have authority for that. But it is good to discuss these things, and learn as much as we can about the other point of view.
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
God tells me one thing, man tells me something else.

Well here, I think, is the crux of the argument...

God, through some method, created the universe, I think we all agree on that. So, if all the physical evidence, evidence derived by using our sences and minds tells us something, is that not also what God is telling us?

Science doesn't need to be what man is telling you, any good scientific theory, you should be able to conduct your own experiments that will either support or contradict. You DON'T have to rely on what others tell you, you can find out for yourself. So, by examining God's creation directly, does that not give you a more direct experience of what God is trying to tell you than what the Bible tell you? Think Chinese whispers... the fewer steps, the more accurate the message, right?

I would never push what I believe on others.
Extremely enlightened of you. However, I think you will foind it is the experience of many on the thread that YEC people often seem to push thier beliefs on others, and do so without any evidence outside of Genesis. This becomes particularly troublesome when it involves deciding educational curicula. Like I say, everyone is entitled t his own beliefs. But when people start to push those beliefs on others, especially without evidence, thats when people tend to get emotional. So I apologise if I, or anyone else, on this thread seems to have been short with you regarding this matters, but it does get wearing to continue to argue with people who seem absolutely determined to believe something that you can see is not correct. For what its worth, I congratulate you on your open mindedness.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

vossler

Senior Veteran
Jul 20, 2004
2,760
158
63
Asheville NC
✟19,363.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
LightHorseman said:
So I apologise if I, or anyone else, on this thread seems to have been short with you regarding this matters, but it does get wearing to continue to argue with people who seem absolutely determined to believe something that you can see is not correct.
Many evolutionists seem to get weary with creationists who wish to put their trust and faith into what God's Word says. Yes it's true many people see with their natural eyes 'facts' or theories based upon 'measurements' that appear, to them, to be unquestionably true and accurate. That's a common problem Christians run into with non-Christians. I for the life of me can't figure out why Christians are so easily swayed by what they see. :confused: Aren't we told: "for we walk by faith, not by sight" and when the wisest man who ever lived says: "Nothing makes sense! Everything is nonsense. I have seen it all--nothing makes sense!" why do we still have to make sense of how God created? Why is it so important, that we are willing to compromise Scripture to align it with worldly knowledge?

This is even more intriguing when we consider that for all the 'facts' and other 'evidence' that man has been able to assimilate, no one can say they've observed the entire process of evolution, at least when referring to molecules to man portion of it. It all sounds great in theory, if you're an atheist that is, yet as Christians we buy into it, why? What makes it even worse is that people who are also Christians and claim to believe the same Bible will get frustrated with other Christians who believe in spite of the 'evidence'. They have faith! Isn't this the same argument atheists and agnostics use?
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
no one can say they've observed the entire process of evolution, at least when referring to molecules to man portion of it.

yes they can. proteins, prions, viruses, archaea, protists, multicelled organisms. There you go, easy :) Give me a petri dish, agar and some friendly staph from your skin and I'll breed you a super killer bug in a few weeks. Evolution while you wait!

Many evolutionists seem to get weary with creationists who wish to put their trust and faith into what God's Word says.

I respectfully disagree (as a Christian) I get weary with creationists who want to put their trust and faith in an unsupported book, rather than what their senses and mind can tell them by direct observance of God's creation.

Why is it so important, that we are willing to compromise Scripture to align it with worldly knowledge?
Because humans want anti-biotics, and you can't produce effective ABs against MRSA without a basis in evolutionary theory.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
475
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟63,625.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Many evolutionists seem to get weary with creationists who wish to put their trust and faith into what God's Word says. Yes it's true many people see with their natural eyes 'facts' or theories based upon 'measurements' that appear, to them, to be unquestionably true and accurate. That's a common problem Christians run into with non-Christians. I for the life of me can't figure out why Christians are so easily swayed by what they see. :confused: Aren't we told: "for we walk by faith, not by sight" and when the wisest man who ever lived says: "Nothing makes sense! Everything is nonsense. I have seen it all--nothing makes sense!" why do we still have to make sense of how God created? Why is it so important, that we are willing to compromise Scripture to align it with worldly knowledge?

This is even more intriguing when we consider that for all the 'facts' and other 'evidence' that man has been able to assimilate, no one can say they've observed the entire process of evolution, at least when referring to molecules to man portion of it. It all sounds great in theory, if you're an atheist that is, yet as Christians we buy into it, why? What makes it even worse is that people who are also Christians and claim to believe the same Bible will get frustrated with other Christians who believe in spite of the 'evidence'. They have faith! Isn't this the same argument atheists and agnostics use?
How long have you been around here and all you have are the same strawman arguments? This isn't about not having faith in God or compromising scripture. It's about Creationists not understanding the nature of God's complete revelation.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.