The number one bugger for creationists: C

[nyjbarnes]

Inerrant with relation to truth is not the same as literal interpretation.

As for who's right, I guess a little bit of all of them. God is right in his revelation in the bible of the truths of salvation, the authors got that interpretation right. Scientists are right as they study God's creation and show us that a literal interpretation of the bible is wrong. God's creation CAN'T LIE - only mans interpretation of the intent of the bible can be wrong. YEC's have it wrong because we can see the reality of creation by studying it.

And what you don't take into account or don't want to accept is that God could have created light and strata with the appearance of age. He certainly did it for the organisms of the earth, why not the earth itself?

 

[w81minit]

Because theologically its a bad idea. Its similar to the oomphalo (spelling?) argument. Would God give adam and eve bellybuttons even though they were never born like everyone else? Would God give Adam a scar to make it appear like he had had surgery? The answer that many theologians have come to is, No. God is not a deciever.
With starlight, not only must he have created light already on its way, he would have had to create the appearance of events that never happend. Supernova that never really occured, etc.

Scientifically its an even worse argument. As its a cop out. Its like saying, "the earth was created last tuesday, and was made to appear to be 4.5 billion years old, your memories are all false and have been created to make you think you are x years old." this can't be tested or falsified.
Since many creationist groups claim that creationist is scientifically valid, cop outs like this hurt their case.


It also allows creationist groups to stick with the thoughts that they are pretty much infallible.
I think the sky is green.
The sky looks blue and everyone else says its blue.
I Know, Its really green but god made it appear as if it is blue.
Thus I am right, the sky is green.

Kudos, Well thought out response.

I disagree with the idea that God didn't do this or that based on if he is a deceiver or not. God does a lot of things we do not understand. If you want some shocking proof read the account of Ahab in 1 Kings 22:20 - 23:

20 "The LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said this while another said that. 21 "Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' 22 "The LORD said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be R836 a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice {him} and also prevail. Go and do so.' 23 "Now therefore, behold, the R837 LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you."

 

[notto]

And what you don't take into account or don't want to accept is that God could have created light and strata with the appearance of age. He certainly did it for the organisms of the earth, why not the earth itself?

And if that is true then it leads to God deceiving us by showing us exploding stars that never existed int he first place. That is the whole point of those who are saying that YEC theology leads to a deceptive God. Something which I won't accept.

Appearance of age and appearance of history are not the same thing. If God created trees with lightening scars on them, would this be appearance of age or history? It would be deceptive to do so and would go beyound appearance of age to be a physical deception of the history of the object.

 

[challenger]

And what you don't take into account or don't want to accept is that God could have created light and strata with the appearance of age. He certainly did it for the organisms of the earth, why not the earth itself?

If you're going to create a world as in "Poof, there you go", you'd need to make mature creatures all in one to have a world that can sustain itself. You wouldn't need to create deceptive, fake evidence of an older world than the one that exists.

 

[bevets]

It saddens me that theistic evos insist on associating God with lies. The crux of the issue is 'What has greater weight: intrepretation of the Bible or interpretation of the physical evidence' Consistent biblical interpretation supports a young earth. I choose sound biblical interpreation over atheist mythology.

I don't accept that God is a liar. That is why I must look at a literal interpretation of Genesis as being the wrong intent because God's creation tells us a different story.

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England

Indeed, what has greater weight? Reality or reality filtered through fallible interpretation of the Bible?

Orthodox Christian doctrine maintains that the Bible is Reality and man is fallible.

 

[Sopharos]

So tell me, if science invalidates creationism and the Bibles account of it, how then can it stand in the face of Christianity and say that's it's purpose (whether originally intended or not) is not to disprove God?

I am sorry, I don't buy the evolution does not equal atheism.

Science did not seek to disprove Creationism. Science only unbiasedly and preassumptionlessly interpreted the evidence independent from the the Creationist ideas. Science has done that, and formulated a theory. That theory did not match Creationism, therefore Creationism is falsified.

However, in this case, the Science of Evolution ONLY deals with a biological process, that is, a "how" of ascent of species if you like. Creationism is also the "how" of life's ascent; Creationism says that life was created 6,000 years ago along with the Earth and the Universe. That has been falsified.

But what hasn't been falsified is whether God created or not. Evolution simply disproved Creationism's idea of HOW God created, but NOT as to whether God created or not. Therefore, God has not been falsified by Evolution.

 

[notto]

Kudos, Well thought out response.

I disagree with the idea that God didn't do this or that based on if he is a deceiver or not. God does a lot of things we do not understand. If you want some shocking proof read the account of Ahab in 1 Kings 22:20 - 23:

20 "The LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said this while another said that. 21 "Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' 22 "The LORD said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be R836 a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice {him} and also prevail. Go and do so.' 23 "Now therefore, behold, the R837 LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you."

So would you agree that God could be deceiving creationists as well and that what we see in the physical universe is reality related to its history?

 

[nyjbarnes]

Science studies God's creation, how can that disprove God?

I thought science was Agnostic? How can it study God's creation? That would be accepting that God exists. How then accepting God exists do you put science in between you and God and let that govern your faith in God?

 

[Sopharos]

regardless of context the statement edifies no one. It serves to debase a whole faith in God and the believer who originally posted.

It served to debase faith in your God, that is.

 

[w81minit]

No...proof for Creationism is not in a book. Proof for a God Created universe doesn't require proof, only faith. Creationism is the scientific theory that tries to show that all parts of the bible are scientifically accurate. Which they're not. Evolution has no problem with God creating.


So, where exactly in your faith does it say that God had to create the stars mature enough to have light already here (which doesn't really make sense)? Your personal beliefs do not even coincide with the Word.


Then stop trucking around Creationism as if it is science. If you have no available evidence that Creationism is true, then clearly it is not science.

Sounds like you're saying: Creationism isn't scientific; Evolution wins!

I guess I am decieved as well. This forum is meant to be Creation vs Evolution. If we creationists let you define our viewpoint for us, then obviously you should win this argument. I don't think I'll let you speak for me though. (no offense)
This is a debate forum where I say God and Science (if they can coexist) will coexist in this forum where so far the only acceptable responses are Science based. Even so, I have a problem with Evolution using the scientific method, because it bases its premises on the constant of reality as we now understand it. The only response to this I've heard is: there's no evidence to demonstrate that it wasn't. Since we know we can't prove a negative in the first place, it is circular logic. IMO

Just .02

 

[Sopharos]

Orthodox Christian doctrine maintains that the Bible is Reality and man is fallible.

Yeah, and guess who wrote the Bible? Men. The Universe is infallible.

 

[notto]

I thought science was Agnostic? How can it study God's creation? That would be accepting that God exists. How then accepting God exists do you put science in between you and God and let that govern your faith in God?

No, science is agnostic in the sense that it can't study the supernatural or make claims to it validity.

But, if what you and I both believe, that God created the creation is true, then my statement is fact - Science is the study of God's creation. This isn't studying God or the supernatural, only what you and I believe is the manifestation of the supernatural and the word.

As I mentioned, this was the intent of many of the Christian scientists we hear so much about. These Christian scientists who falsified YEC, well before evolution even came into the picture.

 

[aeroz19]

A good example of why even christians should be against creationism. Here we see that some are willing to turn God into a deciever to protect their idea of creation (creationism). Before turning God into a deciever shouldn't we question ourselves first?

This single sentence is bursting with wisdom. It is, in fact, partly arrogance that causes many to be willfully ignorant for fear of what they might find out if they search open mindedly for answers.

 

[Sopharos]

I thought science was Agnostic? How can it study God's creation? That would be accepting that God exists. How then accepting God exists do you put science in between you and God and let that govern your faith in God?

And? Agnostic means neither exclude nor includes a Creator. You can include a Creator in you interpretation of Science if you like. Science doesn't care.

 

[nyjbarnes]

And if that is true then it leads to God deceiving us by showing us exploding stars that never existed int he first place. That is the whole point of those who are saying that YEC theology leads to a deceptive God. Something which I won't accept.

Appearance of age and appearance of history are not the same thing. If God created trees with lightening scars on them, would this be appearance of age or history? It would be deceptive to do so and would go beyound appearance of age to be a physical deception of the history of the object.

The root of this argument is where do you validate your faith? Is it in the Bible or your ability to percieve science, considering the fact that we are weak failable creatures I lean on the inerrancy of and divine right of the Bible.

Who's to say it's deception? How does trying to figure out the universe's origins get you closer to God? You think God owes you something, God owes you nothing. It's his grace that has allowed you to even be writing back and forth to me.

 

[notto]

Sounds like you're saying: Creationism isn't scientific; Evolution wins!

I guess I am decieved as well. This forum is meant to be Creation vs Evolution. If we creationists let you define our viewpoint for us, then obviously you should win this argument. I don't think I'll let you speak for me though. (no offense)

Yet you constantly claim that theistic evolutionists positions demand they reject the bible or that evolution = atheism even though you have theistic evolutionist and scientists telling you this isn't true.

Where's that pot-kettle-black image when we need it.

 

[Shalia]

Then stop trucking around Creationism as if it is science. If you have no available evidence that Creationism is true, then clearly it is not science.

Where have I done so? I've been on this site for mere hours. I thought this would be a fun place to discuss things is all.

 

[Sopharos]

Where's that pot-kettle-black image when we need it.

You asked?

 

[nyjbarnes]

And? Agnostic means neither exclude nor includes a Creator. You can include a Creator in you interpretation of Science if you like. Science doesn't care.

AWA

 

[Nathan Poe]

What is the greater purpose here?

Areoz, explain to me, when you prove to a weak Christian the the Earth is not 6000 years old...then what? When you prove to them that the Bible can't be trusted then what?

The Bible says nothing about the age of the Earth. Where's the connection?

When you prove to them that science is the only way to heaven or at least the only way to explain what the Bible apparently leaves to faith, then what?

HUH???

Remember, it wasn't literal interpretations that came up with evolution...it was the absense of the will to have faith that did that.

True faith is not blind faith. Faith is belief without proof, not belief in spite of proof. That's just plain gullibility.

Siding with people that seek to invalidate the Bible is a risky business, since the Bible does command you not to cause another brother to fall. Tread lightly, God is a righteous God and is not mocked.

Since nobody's trying to invalide the Bible, merely a questionable interpretation of it, there's not need to threaten to sic your pet God on anyone.