The number one bugger for creationists: C

[notto]

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.

I validate my faith in the bible, just as you do. You are suggesting that I am taking a position that I am not.

I think that studying the creation can certanly bring me closer to God, just as studying the bible can. Studying the creation tells me how God created, the bible tells me why.

As for your 'God owes' rant, save it. Again, you are putting words is my mouth and being a bit holier than thou in doing it.

 

[w81minit]

But this leads to the problem that we are now seeing things that never existed. This means that God is deceiving us to believe that some stars that never existed did or that the stars we are seeing never actually looked like we see them now (basically, God is showing us a picture show of things that never happened an is still doing it).

You have to remember that we are talking about more than light. The pictures from the Hubble, in your answer, are just God's picture show and it is all false.

When Jesus cause the lame to walk, and the blind to see, did he do it according to scientific rules and principles, or is he the creator of the universe and therefore able to more than we understand. How as it that he fed the five thousnad with 12 remaining baskets on just a loaf and some fishes? I guess since that didn't follow what we believe as scientific principle these are truely just finctional embellishments created by a consiracy to moralize the world! CHtongueEEK

I am not trying to be fecitious. I am pointing out that the master of all creation can do as he pleases without the implication that he is deceiving us. Honestly that whole argument puts me off, because it is us defining God for him. Not very good thology. God doesn't care about science - He walked on water. He calmed the sea with a word. He healed the sick and saved the lost. It is us who are trying imperfectly to see what he has done. I mean - who is chasing who here?

Good thread. I have enjoyed it thusfar.

 

[Shalia]

Inadvertently wery well said.

Wasn't inadvertant. Said it exactly that way for a reason. Faith is not evidence, evidence is not faith.

I believe the way I do because I have faith in God and the Bible. If another does not, my primary document for "proving" what I believe is no longer of much use in the debate, and therefore leaving me with not much else. I believe God created the earth in 6 days cause God said so through His prophets. If someone else doesn't believe the Bible, what I believe to be "proof" enough for me, isn't proof for them. I can't win. What someone else believes to be truth, I don't believe, because I believe God over anything else. Kind of an impasse, but still interesting reading, at least in my mind.

 

[nyjbarnes]

Wow, on dialup I got to the bottom of the thread! Oops, page 5....

Paul Harvey....ggggggood Day.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I am sorry, did Nathan Poe not make the statement? Did I put words in his mouth?

If his statement can't stand on it's own merits for validation why can't I used it for invalidation?

Are you utterly incapable of quoting an entire statement for context? Try again, without bearing false witness.

 

[nyjbarnes]

As for your 'God owes' rant, save it. Again, you are putting words is my mouth and being a bit holier than thou in doing it.

Agreed, it certainly didn't come off the way I meant to. Sorry.

 

[Nathan Poe]

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.

And we don't buy that the Bible equals God. How unfortunate that you do.

 

[notto]

When Jesus cause the lame to walk, and the blind to see, did he do it according to scientific rules and principles, or is he the creator of the universe and therefore able to more than we understand. How as it that he fed the five thousnad with 12 remaining baskets on just a loaf and some fishes? I guess since that didn't follow what we believe as scientific principle these are truely just finctional embellishments created by a consiracy to moralize the world! CHtongueEEK

I am not trying to be fecitious. I am pointing out that the master of all creation can do as he pleases without the implication that he is deceiving us. Honestly that whole argument puts me off, because it is us defining God for him. Not very good thology. God doesn't care about science - He walked on water. He calmed the sea with a word. He healed the sick and saved the lost. It is us who are trying imperfectly to see what he has done. I mean - who is chasing who here?

Good thread. I have enjoyed it thusfar.

Yes, the master of all creation can do as he pleases but the bible would seem to point to a master of all creation that would have the integrity to do it in a way that is not deceptive. Showing people visions of an exploding star that never existing would cause me to question this integrity. I'm not defining God, I'm using God's own definition to understand the creation. God would not lie to me so YEC must be incorrect.

 

[bevets]

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.

Evolution is not the same as athesim. Evolution is mythology that has been based on atheistic assumptions. The primary assumption is that our Creator is irrelevant when studying creation.

 

[w81minit]

mhess, try this one:

Would God ask us not to use our minds to observe our surroundings and try to understand them? Would he make the universe look mature to laugh at the silly phycists who love finding out more about the world around them?

Why make the universe look mature and then give us the minds to try to understand it at the same time? Is he playing silly buggers with us?

God has chosen the simple to confound the wise.

Remember this from scripture:
Mark 4:12
so that 'Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.' " Why are physicist's above mockery? We are so wise in our own eyes as Human beings. We don't stop and consider our ways.

 

[nyjbarnes]

Are you utterly incapable of quoting an entire statement for context? Try again, without bearing false witness.

He said utterly...

Mooooo!

Ask questions that have fewer words, most of the pages are torn out of my thesaurus. Hey man, when you need the TP, you need the TP.

Here's a question I could probably handle,

What?

You know nathan I wrote an entire post apologizing to you and the readers for quote mining, conceding that I may have done that. But then I thought, no, if he made the statement, it needs to stand on it's own merits. I can think of not a single instance where it would not be blasphemous to compare my God to a liar...no matter the context, fecetious or not. If you can't handle that you made a mistake that's your issue... sorry, no offense intended, this is just my view.

 

[Sopharos]

Evolution is not the same as athesim. Evolution is mythology that has been based on atheistic assumptions.

Then that's ironic then, since Darwin was a Christian at the time of writing Origins

The primary assumption is that our Creator is irrelevant when studying creation.

Not irrelevent, just neither excluded nor included. Like I've said many times before, Science deals ONLY with what is observable, and God is unobservable.

 

[nyjbarnes]

And we don't buy that the Bible equals God. How unfortunate that you do.

What are you the Borg?

 

[Tachocline]

oops

 

[notto]

Evolution is not the same as athesim. Evolution is mythology that has been based on atheistic assumptions. The primary assumption is that our Creator is irrelevant when studying creation.

And I'm the Queen of England!!!

(I can see why bevets sticks to quoting others.)

Bevets, can you explain to me how so many people can accept evolution and other mainstream sciences while all the time being faithful, believing Christians at the same time if what you say is true?

Gravity is not the same as athesim. Gravity is mythology that has been based on atheistic assumptions. The primary assumption is that our Creator is irrelevant when studying the motions of the heavens.

 

[Nathan Poe]

God has chosen the simple to confound the wise.

Does that mean that God is a deceiver?

Remember this from scripture:
Mark 4:12
so that 'Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.' "

Indeed, some people just don't see the forest for the trees. Something can be right in front of you and you won't get it.

Why are physicist's above mockery?

Certainly they are not, but who is "above" the physicist to mock their work?

At the circus, the audience laughs at the clown; who does the clown laugh at?

We are so wise in our own eyes as Human beings. We don't stop and consider our ways.

You need to read some Mark Twain for that kind of consideration; I recommend Huckleberry Finn or The Mysterious Stranger.

 

[Sopharos]

I can think of not a single instance where it would not be blasphemous to compare my God to a liar...no matter the context, fecetious or not.

Indeed, calling God a liar is blasphemous. But that is the idea that YEC's are trying get us to buy. Therefore, it is not that we called God a liar without provocation, YECs are the ones that first suggested that God is a liar. Therefore, YEC's are the ones calling God a liar, and in effect, blaspheming God, not us.

 

[aeroz19]

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.

His point went *woosh* past you, sadly.

 

[notto]

. . . it would not be blasphemous to compare my God to a liar...no matter the context, fecetious or not.

Context is everything.

 

[nyjbarnes]

His point went *woosh* past you, sadly.

I posted questions specifically for you...will you be answering them tonight?