Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[truthpls]

That was a very long winded and rambling way to say that you cannot answer my question.

Sorry you could not perceive it was answered. The answer was that you cannot know some things and that it is the wrong approach to believe that nature played a role in the creation of God. Using natural laws and realities cannot lead us to any knowledge of how or when everything was created.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Why would anyone want to go back to a pre-enlightenment, 16th century world view?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry you could not perceive it was answered. The answer was that you cannot know some things and that it is the wrong approach to believe that nature played a role in the creation of God. Using natural laws and realities cannot lead us to any knowledge of how or when everything was created.

But when we use science, we have to use natural laws. When we talk about science, we have to talk about nature and realities. Those are the only things that can be studied.
To put God into the mix is to include religion and theology and those go beyond the scope of science since they invoke the super-natural (that which is beyond nature) and also, since the whole thing of "God created everything" as answer means there's no point asking any question and thus renders the point of science - the study of the natural world, moot and pointless.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why would anyone want to go back to a pre-enlightenment, 16th century world view?

It's even further than that since even before the enlightenment, there was scientific study and discourse going on. Just coached in very strange terms like alchemy.

This is just intellectual laziness.

 

[truthpls]

In reading through this thread, it seems to me that the bases of your argument about the age of the earth is based on interpretation.

All arguments about creation are based on interpretation, except when we simply accept God's account for it. Even then, if we try to explain the minutia it is a waste of time because we are not God and we have no idea what creation involved by the Great Spirit (Jesus)
Just as you cannot explain ho He walked on water, or rose people up from the dead. All the 'explaining power' of science is quarantined in the little land of carnal knowledge

Quite honestly I don't know what that means. In the hope of finding out, if you don't mind, I'd like to work with the Yellowstone Hotspot. Also please note, I'm very much a Lover of God.

The Earth has shown us that the Yellowstone Hotspot appeared at the Oregon/Nevada border 16.5 years ago.

No. The earth shows us that God created it all. Ages you concoct based on something else (such as using the natural world to try to explain creation or time) have no meaning or reality. I consider them nothing more than a statement of faith. To get real ages and times one must include God. He made time! Paul mentioned that in Hebrews. "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear"!

I've visited that area.

Me too

Through a series of eruptions the Yellowstone Hotspot burned its way to it's present location as the North American Plate moved westward over it. Where these eruptions occurred and when is well studied and understood. It's what God's own Creation, the Earth, is directly showing us.

There were eruptions and molten rocks etc. How would you tie that into creation?

I've provided a map below.

There's a lot more involved such as the relationship the Yellowstone Hotspot has with the Columbia River Basalt flows and such. But I've made this example focused on the Yellowstone Hotspot only and made it as simple as I know. Hopefully your are able to provide your interpretation of the geology and age of movement of the Yellowstone Hotspot. I'd like to understand your interpretation.

Here's a map showing the various eruptions of the Yellowstone Hotspot as the North American Plate moved over it:

View attachment 358026

It seems evident that it moved. The humour in the picture is the funny little 'dates' they wrote in the circles.

 

[truthpls]

But when we use science, we have to use natural laws.

Yes you sure do! And this is why you cannot come to a knowledge of the truth. The truth involves more than that by a long shot. If you limit your knowledge to only one small part of the truth, you quickly reach a dead end in which you get lost in a confused haze.

When we talk about science, we have to talk about nature and realities.

When we talk about reality we have to talk about more than natural stuff. If you restrict the word reality to the pitiful little realm of the natural world we see, then you might as well forget using the word.

Those are the only things that can be studied.

I agree. Study how wonderful He made things work. Study how marvellous creation is. I would suggest not maliciously studying the little physical natural things as if these were supposed to explain everything including creation.

To put God into the mix is to include religion and theology and those go beyond the scope of science since they invoke the super-natural (that which is beyond nature)

To take God out of the mix is to miss everything and is actually a philosophy and anti theology.

and also, since the whole thing of "God created everything" as answer means there's no point asking any question and thus renders the point of science - the study of the natural world, moot and pointless.

There is no point doubting He did what He says He did. There can be some merit in exploring the wonders of creation and trying imagine how things went since being created etc etc.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes you sure do! And this is why you cannot come to a knowledge of the truth. The truth involves more than that by a long shot. If you limit your knowledge to only one small part of the truth, you quickly reach a dead end in which you get lost in a confused haze.

When we talk about reality we have to talk about more than natural stuff. If you restrict the word reality to the pitiful little realm of the natural world we see, then you might as well forget using the word.

I agree. Study how wonderful He made things work. Study how marvellous creation is. I would suggest not maliciously studying the little physical natural things as if these were supposed to explain everything including creation.

To take God out of the mix is to miss everything and is actually a philosophy and anti theology.

There is no point doubting He did what He says He did. There can be some merit in exploring the wonders of creation and trying imagine how things went since being created etc etc.

So, forgive me for boiling this down to something silly, but in your mind, is there even a point in pursuing science or any scientific investigation at all if it does not fully consider your own personal interpretation of the Bible then?

Because that's how your commentary reads to me: that because science somehow offends you and your personal interpretation of the Bible, then science should be just shunted aside.

 

[dlamberth]

All arguments about creation are based on interpretation, except when we simply accept God's account for it. Even then, if we try to explain the minutia it is a waste of time because we are not God and we have no idea what creation involved by the Great Spirit (Jesus)
Just as you cannot explain ho He walked on water, or rose people up from the dead. All the 'explaining power' of science is quarantined in the little land of carnal knowledge

Yes, I can explain Jesus walked on water and raised folks up from the dead...it's something called "Infinite Divine LOVE! "

It seems evident that it moved. The humour in the picture is the funny little 'dates' they wrote in the circles

So your interpretation is deflection. I truly was hoping for more. What your finding humorous in the picture are a serious of geological events over time as set in motion by the Creator God. The Earth is God's Creation and signed off with His signature. I get the blessings in that Truth, but not so much the humor.

 

[truthpls]

So, forgive me for boiling this down to something silly, but in your mind, is there even a point in pursuing science or any scientific investigation at all if it does not fully consider your own personal interpretation of the Bible then?

I think using what little man knows for good is a good thing. I would not personally consider wasting trillions to get to deep space or interpreting creation without God or changing the sex of kids a good thing.

Because that's how your commentary reads to me: that because science somehow offends you and your personal interpretation of the Bible, then science should be just shunted aside.

I am not offended when I see a mentally challenged person, or when I see a reality challenged scientist trying to explain it all with ridiculously limited knowledge. There is a place for everything and science and man need to know their place. That place is not as know it alls or creator or God.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think using what little man knows for good is a good thing. I would not personally consider wasting trillions to get to deep space or interpreting creation without God or changing the sex of kids a good thing.

But you don't get to decide what counts as 'good' science. No-one is, really.

I am not offended when I see a mentally challenged person, or when I see a reality challenged scientist trying to explain it all with ridiculously limited knowledge. There is a place for everything and science and man need to know their place. That place is not as know it alls or creator or God.

Not related to what I asked at all.

 

[truthpls]

Yes, I can explain Jesus walked on water and raised folks up from the dead...it's something called "Infinite Divine LOVE! "

Explain how Peter walked on water using that?

So your interpretation is deflection. I truly was hoping for more. What your finding humorous in the picture are a serious of geological events over time as set in motion by the Creator God.

The events are serious enough. The drawn in 'ages' are a joke at best.

The Earth is God's Creation and signed off with His signature. I get the blessings in that Truth, but not so much the humor.

So explain where the signature of the One who gave us Genesis is to be found in the little circles on a map with the silly so called ages drawn in?

 

[truthpls]

But you don't get to decide what counts as 'good' science. No-one is, really.

Yes I do. God told us what is good and bad. It is a pity many scientists do not even know that much.

Not related to what I asked at all.

Yes it was. Acknowledging the real and present limits of physical studies is central to the whole issue

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes i do. God told us what is good and bad. It is a pity many scientists do not even know that much.

No, you don't, nor do you get to claim what God does or does not want, especially in the sciences.

Yes it was. Acknowledging the real and present limits of physical studies is central to the whole issue

Here's what your comment was a response to:
"Because that's how your commentary reads to me: that because science somehow offends you and your personal interpretation of the Bible, then science should be just shunted aside."

 

[truthpls]

No, you don't, nor do you get to claim what God does or does not want, especially in the sciences.

Yes I do. If science does anything that is not good such as some of the things I mentioned earlier, bam. I know good from evil. If science is used in Canada, for example to kill many thousands of people (MAID) I can say it is bad. If science makes any claims that oppose the bible are bad. Sorry. No one can override what God declares good or evil. Not even science.

Here's what your comment was a response to:
"Because that's how your commentary reads to me: that because science somehow offends you and your personal interpretation of the Bible, then science should be just shunted aside."

Your commentary suggesting that simple belief in the clearly stated Scripture is 'personal interpretation' is shunted aside.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes I do. If science does anything that is not good such as some of the things I mentioned earlier, bam. I know good from evil. If science is used in Canada, for example to kill many thousands of people (MAID) I can say it is bad. If science makes any claims that oppose the bible are bad. Sorry. No one can override what God declares good or evil. Not even science.

Canadian MAID is government policy, not science. Your government is the problem not science.

Your commentary suggesting that simple belief in the clearly stated Scripture is 'personal interpretation' is shunted aside.

I'm going to repeat what I said again so you can actually grasp what I'm saying since you seem to be pointedly ignoring what I said:
"Because that's how your commentary reads to me: that because science somehow offends you and your personal interpretation of the Bible, then science should be just shunted aside."

That is what your comments so far have seemed to me. So am I right in my description or am I wrong?

 

[BCP1928]

Yes I do. If science does anything that is not good such as some of the things I mentioned earlier, bam. I know good from evil. If science is used in Canada, for example to kill many thousands of people (MAID) I can say it is bad. If science makes any claims that oppose the bible are bad. Sorry. No one can override what God declares good or evil. Not even science.

Your commentary suggesting that simple belief in the clearly stated Scripture is 'personal interpretation' is shunted aside.

It is an interpretation, based on the Doctrine of Perspicuity, a doctrine unknown outside of a few fringe Protestant sects.

 

[dlamberth]

Explain how Peter walked on water using that?

Again, by way "Infinite Divine LOVE!

The events are serious enough. The drawn in 'ages' are a joke at best.

If a joke, how do you understand those series of eruptions of the Yellowstone Hotspot that clearly occurred over a long period of time?

 

[truthpls]

Canadian MAID is government policy, not science. Your government is the problem not science.

If they used a blunt object to kill the people you might have a point. I think they use science. Just as they use science to mutilate children and etc. Governments also use science to send missions to space and weapons. War is also totally wrapped up in science. I do not share your view that all of the things science has made possible for man cannot be good or evil. It is a bit like a bad lady giving out poison candy with razor blades to kids on Halloween. One could try to claim that the candy itself is not good or bad. However, the one producing the candy is evil. Science produces or makes possible many many bad things in this world. The 'lady' handing it all out is therefore quite relevant.
In the case of what science hands out to the world, we can say it is good or evil.

I'm going to repeat what I said again so you can actually grasp what I'm saying since you seem to be pointedly ignoring what I said:
"Because that's how your commentary reads to me: that because science somehow offends you and your personal interpretation of the Bible, then science should be just shunted aside."

Creation as per Scripture is not personal interpretation. How He may have done it may be.

That is what your comments so far have seemed to me. So am I right in my description or am I wrong?

Wrong. Your calling any simple faith in God and His word personal interpretation is wrong.

 

[truthpls]

Again, by way "Infinite Divine LOVE!

How does this supersede gravity exactly?

If a joke, how do you understand those series of eruptions of the Yellowstone Hotspot that clearly occurred over a long period of time?

Why do you say it was a long period of time? Yes things moved. Over how much time and why etc is the question.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If they used a blunt object to kill the people you might have a point. I think they use science. Just as they use science to mutilate children and etc. Governments also use science to send missions to space and weapons. War is also totally wrapped up in science. I do not share your view that all of the things science has made possible for man cannot be good or evil. It is a bit like a bad lady giving out poison candy with razor blades to kids on Halloween. One could try to claim that the candy itself is not good or bad. However, the one producing the candy is evil. Science produces or makes possible many many bad things in this world. The 'lady' handing it all out is therefore quite relevant.
In the case of what science hands out to the world, we can say it is good or evil.

But MAID is a GOVERNMENT program. Keyword in that sentence is GOVERNMENT. You're argument that somehow science is to blame is ridiculous and nonsensical.

Creation as per Scripture is not personal interpretation. How He may have done it may be.

Way to avoid the issue by putting words in my mouth.

Wrong. Your calling any simple faith in God and His word personal interpretation is wrong.

You're putting words in my mouth. Bad look for a Christian, buddy.