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.
Well, since they believe the Bible says that the earth is no older than 10,000 years, they must never question this, EVER!! Instead, they think inside the box--the Bible box, a very limited, small box.
No, we're not. Evolution is a theory. The Holocaust is a fact. You subscribe to or believe in theory. You'd have to be nuts, in my opinion, to deny a factual event such as the Holocaust. Now, your ready reply might be that I'm nuts for not subscribing to the evidence surrounding evolution, but if evolution were fact, we wouldn't be having these discussions.Arikay said:Well, actually we are talking about the denial of facts and evidence, when we talk about creationism.
homewardbound said:No, we're not. Evolution is a theory. The Holocaust is a fact. You subscribe to or believe in theory. You'd have to be nuts, in my opinion, to deny a factual event such as the Holocaust. Now, your ready reply might be that I'm nuts for not subscribing to the evidence surrounding evolution, but if evolution were fact, we wouldn't be having these discussions.
I hope we're not getting of topic here.....
Natum Poe said:how much more amazing is it to put temoral anecdotes on metaphysical attributes like God with no amount of information at their disposal.
Faith is not a 'scientific method' by any definition. the scientific method is a way of finding answers; faith is a justification for answers already believed to be found.
: then there is a bias... as they seek, they already assume that there will find.
There's always the possibility of looking for a god who is not there.
If creationists KNOW this already, where does the faith come in?
Actually, many creationists look at evolution as a nonentity, a delusion, and/or a conspiracy.
Those who replace experimentation with dogma.
That's simply false. Evolution - and everything else - is fact (or isn't fact) irrespective of who accepts it. Peopel dispute facts all the time. People dispute the holocaust...creationists dispute evolution. That doesn't do anything to prove that either of them isn't a fact.homewardbound said:No, we're not. Evolution is a theory. The Holocaust is a fact. You subscribe to or believe in theory. You'd have to be nuts, in my opinion, to deny a factual event such as the Holocaust. Now, your ready reply might be that I'm nuts for not subscribing to the evidence surrounding evolution, but if evolution were fact, we wouldn't be having these discussions.
Quantum physics and string theory is metaphysical, but we put attributes on that. We have a book that tells us a little of the attributes of God, but all we have are mathematics for Pions.
No. I am saying that as rational people we must determine where our authority, our cornerstone, our foundation comes from. All else is built on that. I am saying that science does a great job explaining itself. Yet regardless of how well it explains itself, it is not the authority. Instead I suborninate all of man's findings with divine truth. If it does not match divine truth, then man is in error. He must go back and reexamine what his basis for impuning divine truth is.Cantuar said:And therefore we can, at this stage, just reject the bits of it we don't like (because they conflict with our theology) by saying that they're the result of sinful man's imperfect understanding of a fallen world while keeping the bits we happen to find useful and don't conflict with our theology, even though both are based on the same principles and method, is that what you're saying?
I can appreciate that. I don't agree, but I understand the logic. It is sad; however that those things God asks us to take on faith, when we 'discover' things on our own that conflict with divine truth, we hold our findings superior to the divine truth. This should not be the case.Cantuar said:One way and another, we've had a few raical alterations already. One thing that doesn't tend to happen, however, is that an explanation that was discarded in the past as being incapable of covering all the evidence, is resurrected in light of new evidence. The problem is that the old evidence, which it didn't explain, is still there. Young earth creationism is an explanation that was discarded 200 years ago because it failed to explain many observations of physical geology.
It might seem that way, but that is not my intention. Lets look at an example: In a 'funhouse' you go into rooms where all you see around you is in perfect harmony with itself, yet you feel off balance and can't quite figure out why things seem off. The truth is, the house is built square and true, and the evidence you observe is perfectly in line with that; however your body indicates that gravity is pulling ou sideways instead of down in relation to the room you are in. It is because the construct is not the whole truth. It is only part of the truth. The lacking portion of the argument in Evolution and much of science as it conflicts with scripture is that we are only willing to look at the angles of the house, and the door jams, and the vertical and horizontal lines in the house. The overwhelming evidence in the house would indicate that Gravity pulls you sideways - yet when you leave the confines of that 'half truth' world, you find it was wrong all along. It was only our perception of what we saw around us. We used the best methods possible to discern the environment, they were just not adequate for the task.Cantuar said:That's just an excuse. It's a way to weasel out of something you don't like. Unless you're prepared to apply that reasoning to the scientific method across the board, you're being less than honest.
I go by scripture alone to determine how the Earth came into existence. I subordinate all things to Biblical Exegesis. In that study, we compare scripture with scripture. We have faith that it was God who inspired the writers to wrinte the very words he wished them to, to convey the very truth he wished us to hear.Cantuar said:All scientific explanations are theories. However, theories exist because there are facts that need explaining. The theory of evolution (variation and selection) explains the fact of evolution (descent with modification). All the hand-waving in the world about why it's OK to ignore evolution only applies to the current explanation, not the fact. Evolution happens. If you don't like the current theory, it would help to have a specific scientific reason. Otherwise the suspicion of and reluctance to accept the theories that conflict with your theology, while being perfectly happy about the ones that don't, starts to look hypocritical.
It isn't that we would know nothing at all it instead that we would be required to walk by faith, in many more things. As believers that is what we are called to do anyways.Loudmouth said:Of course, and this is what science says as well. All scientific theories are held tentatively and could be falsified at any minute. However, if we waited until something was proven beyond ANY doubt then we would know nothing at all. Even you can't be sure, 100%, that your interpretation of the Bible is absolutely accurate.
And this is the crux of the issue. What makes man the authority to put God's word to the 'test'? Who is following who? Does God need man to rule, or does man need God to save him? I contend that it is the latter not the former.Loudmouth said:Then we would know the truth and the Bible would be put to the test as to it's accuracy as a historical text.
Nearly all of your peers claim it as fact.Loudmouth said:When has anyone said that evolution is anything other than a theory, a theory held tentatively and open to modification or outright falsification? However, until that falsifying evidence comes to light we have to go with what the data tells us now. Man's intepretations of the evidence can be wrong, and that is why it is objectively tested through the scientific method. One person's observations could be wrong which is why science relies on repeatability of a test. We could ultimately be a program run on a galactic computer, but that shouldn't stop us from investigating our reality to the best of our ability and making theories from that investigation.
The blind are those who put their full faith and confidence in only the senses that God gave them. They do not recognize the scripture says 'apart from faith shall no flesh be justified'. Faith has nothing to do with proving factually anything.Dale said:w81minit in post #412:
<< I am closed minded, stubborn, and completely immoveable, unless you can prove me wrong.
. . .
What matters is the blind scientist is just as much a creation as the Elephant, and in no position to refute the laws the creator established.>>
*
So where in the Bible does God command us to be closed minded, stubborn and immovable? Where did God ever say that he likes such people?
"unless you can prove me wrong"--the problem is that there is no evidence that creationists will accept.
You refer to scientists as "blind." The "blind" are the ones who refuse to use the senses that God gave them to look at the evidence.
Most YEC's believe somewhere between 10K - 13K years old. Not sure where the 6K came from. The reason for this is looking at the geneologies and histories of those in scripture. If you follow 2K years form AD and the Geneologies of Christ, there are clear ways to determine a rough historical accounting of the number of years since Adam.Dale said:Who's jumping to conclusions? Many creationists believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. Yet written history alone goes back 6100 years. So where did the 6,000 year figure come from? It isn't in Genesis, or anything else in the Bible. It was added later by unimaginative theologians who had no use for a long past.
The bible is a text that claims it. I would call that evidence. There are other evidences, but I am not one to argue them at this point. The truth is the law of conservation of matter (if true) would require that all matter is eternal. That is an idea that goes completely contrary to scripture. This is one reason why science and Theology do not mix.Dale said:The word Theory is often misunderstood. In common usage, a theory is any idea, any notion. In scientific usage, a theory is a response to the evidence. In that sense, it is not clear that Creationism deserves to be called a theory. What physical evidence is Creationism a response to? While cosmologist's views about the universe are a theory, Creationism is only a fixed idea.
Well, I see your point. If one does not accept that God has chosen to reveal himself through Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible, and that his word is accurate and faithfully recorded truth, then what you are left with is believing that there is nothing to believe in, because they are all men's ideas - all of them. There is no absolute authority - no cornerstone on which to build your life and the guiding principles of generations and kingdoms and countries.Dale said:Are religious doctrines better than theories? The reason that there are dogmas, creeds, doctrines and theologies is that the Bible is not self-explanatory. A religious doctrine, for Bible believing Christians, is a theory about what the Bible says, an understanding about what God is trying to tell us through the Bible. I don't see how a doctrine can claim to be better than a theory.
w81minit said:...the law of conservation of matter...
Untrue. Creationists are all those who uphold the scripture as the source of absolute truth. They are those who by faith read its words and by faith pray to God for enlightenment and understanding. Who pour over the book page by page, line by line, to discover what it means and how to apply it to their lives.Arikay said:How did he prove your point?
Creationist groups are definatly biased, most have a statement of faith that all members must sign. this statement basically says that they must ignore any evidence that contradicts creationism.
Regardless of what you 'dub' the word (accept, believe) it is an acknowledgement of a personal reality. Just like in the Christian Faith, we acknowledge, accept, believe that Jesus is Lord. It may frustrate you that we (as Creationists) interpret you acceptance of the personal reality as faith, but it makes it no less true. Call it a Strawman if you must, but that you vehemently defend your personal reality is evidence of your 'beleive, faith, acceptance' of this personal reality.Arikay said:Generally its not called "belief", its "accept". Partly to get away from the "evolution is religion" strawman that creationist groups have made.
Your right, evolution isn't fact, but neither is germ theory, yet I'm sure many would argue that it's true. Something doesn't need to be a fact to be true.
I wasn't refering to evolution anyway, but to the facts and evidence that must be ignored to accept creationism.
w81minit said:...it is not a requirement to be a Creationist.
Not to get off topic, but more to look at consistency. This isn't the same logic used when discussing absolute truth. You indicated in a previous post that certain things are not absolute, because not everyone accepts them. You are correctly pointing out in this post that your personal feelings/beliefs have nothing to do with facts. As they have nothing to do with truth. As far above Earth is the Heavens is tuth above fact.The Bellman said:That's simply false. Evolution - and everything else - is fact (or isn't fact) irrespective of who accepts it. Peopel dispute facts all the time. People dispute the holocaust...creationists dispute evolution. That doesn't do anything to prove that either of them isn't a fact.
w81minit said:Untrue. Creationists are all those who uphold the scripture as the source of absolute truth. They are those who by faith read its words and by faith pray to God for enlightenment and understanding. Who pour over the book page by page, line by line, to discover what it means and how to apply it to their lives.
There is no verse requiring you to sign a document. While there are organizations that ask members to do such a thing, it is not a requirement to be a Creationist.
I never signed anything.
If so, who does Satan and God represent?Arikay said:W81: Although theistic evolutionists can explain it better, one view is that Adam and Eve represent every person ever born, they represent your very first sin. Thus First sin still exists, but it isn't blamed on people 6000 years ago, but it is our fault.
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?