The number one bugger for creationists: C

[Sopharos]

Anyone else noticed that so far(still going through the thread) evolutonists can't scientifically prove that God did not create the world with fossils, stars that are vissible to earth, ect about 6,000 years ago?

You can't disprove anything with science when the original hypothesis has no scientific basis in the first place. Ad hoc hypothesis is not scientific.

As I said, YOU guys made God the liar.

No. You did. By expressing the idea that God created the universe to deceive, YOU are calling God a liar. We are only repeating what you said.

 

[w81minit]

At that point you ask, was the Genesis account Creation meant to be taken literally or allegorically?

I am still asking these questions and searching for answers myself.

My fear in this discussion is that for as long as man lives he will make scientific discoveries that could be argued to make morality realative, and nothing sin except for calling sin, sin.
Who is to say that the entire bible in another 100 years won't all be considered allegory? It is constantly under attack by those who do not read it, but claim to have the corner on the market for universal knowledge.

I say for sure that for as long as science is allowed to debunk any portion of the Bible (meaning we take man's word for it not God's) more and more until all scripture will be allegory.

 

[nyjbarnes]

At that point you ask, was the Genesis account Creation meant to be taken literally or allegorically?

I am still asking these questions and searching for answers myself.

Please re-read your OP. It would seem you have the answers. Or at least your leading us to believe that you do.

 

[aeroz19]

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

Well, there we have it, what can I say?

 

[bevets]

My position is that our Creator is relevant to creation events. Would you say that my position is right or wrong? How do you know?

Neither right nor wrong, just your opinion. As I am discussing this from a scientific point of view, I cannot go beyond what is observable.

We must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific .... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. ~ Colin Patterson

The domain of origin science was taken over by operation science. Even the unique, unrepeated events of the origin of the universe, of life, and of new life forms were treated as though the were observed regularities in the present. The difference between unobserved past singularities (origin science) was obscured. The search for natural (secondary) caused for how the universe and life operate in the present was gradually extended to how they originated in the past. Overlooked was the fact that events of origin are not a recurring pattern of events against which a theory of origin can be tested. ~ Norman Geisler

Which creation events have you observed?

 

[Tachocline]

I say for sure that for as long as science is allowed to debunk any portion of the Bible (meaning we take man's word for it not God's) more and more until all scripture will be allegory.

Maybe that's what it shall take, who knows. But your position seems to be the sacred cow approach. Nothing good comes from that except being duped.

 

[nyjbarnes]

Are you saying that God put fossils there in the strata? God made fossils?

Not saying what God did, because I don't know...but it certainly isn't beyond his capability is it?

Now that said, there isn't reliable methods for testing the age of organic material found in rocks. There are too many assumptions. I used to be more familiar with c-14 dating, but I can't come up with anything snappy right now. Perhaps it's because it's midnight. Basically, you can't tell the age of rocks. You can only supposedly tell the age of the organic material...so scientists GUESS, that because the c-14 dating says that fossil is XYZ million years old that so is the rock surrounding it. Not an illogical assumption, but just an assumption with many dependecies for veracity.

 

[nyjbarnes]

I say for sure that for as long as science is allowed to debunk any portion of the Bible (meaning we take man's word for it not God's) more and more until all scripture will be allegory.

[/QUOTE]
Through the window, off the statue, two bounces, nuthin but net. Good point.

 

[w81minit]

Well, there we have it, what can I say?

Stand up and applaud; it helps. Nice stretch - crack the knuckles, we've been typing a while.

This could be taken out of context. If you have consistently read my posts across the various threads you would understand what I meant - but alas I am too tired to explain it, and I - like God - don't mind if you believe a lie. I am still me.

I was just about to type 'Please don't read any offense - none is intended" when I realized it seems I am constantly doing it.
Where I am concerned altogether - unless sniped or unless I see piling on and consistant sniping, I will not attack anyone. I am for humor and debate. Hopefully sandwich in some learning. :crosself:

 

[aeroz19]

My fear in this discussion is that for as long as man lives he will make scientific discoveries that could be argued to make morality realative, and nothing sin except for calling sin, sin.

Sigh. Well, you know what? I hold no fear for what science will tell me. I trust it because it can be tested and verified and disproven, and it can also give results and further understanding and knowledge, as well as improve the standard of living. I really like science. And if science tells me something, I have no fear that it will challenge what I already might believe, because what I may believe cannot be tested, verified, and disproven.

I have nothing to fear.

Who is to say that the entire bible in another 100 years won't all be considered allegory?

Who is to say? I don't think that will happen. This is a very deep question.

It is constantly under attack by those who do not read it, but claim to have the corner on the market for universal knowledge.

You will be surprised to find that over 50% of the atheists and agnostics here are x-Christians.

I say for sure that for as long as science is allowed to debunk any portion of the Bible (meaning we take man's word for it not God's) more and more until all scripture will be allegory.

Geocentrism was debunked. Do you think that any portions of the Bible were debunked as a result?

 

[Tachocline]

Through the window, off the statue, two bounces, nuthin but net. Good point.

Do you know who the Luddites were?

 

[bevets]

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

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

That's right; your interpretation of the Bible could be wrong, because you are fallible!

My interpretation is fallible. Please explain why your interpretaton is better.

 

[w81minit]

Maybe that's what it shall take, who knows. But your position seems to be the sacred cow approach. Nothing good comes from that except being duped.

Sounds like making scripture totally allegory is your plan. I thought there was no conspiracy? It isn't about sacred cow. I have been a believer for 26 years and indeed I have been blessed. I wish you knew what I meant.

I went out to the Rockies straight to Denver, right to Cody Wyoming - I saw God's creation and no typed words could express the magnitude of what my eyes perceived. In the same way I can't describe what my faith in the literal translation of scripture has meant to me.

 

[nyjbarnes]

I have nothing to fear.

You will be surprised to find that over 50% of the atheists and agnostics here are x-Christians.

Nothing to fear huh?

 

[Philosoft]

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

This is the stupidest thing I have heard/seen/encountered in at least the last two hours. This time, bevets, I don't even care if this is a shamelessly mined quote. It's stupid.

 

[nyjbarnes]

Do you know who the Luddites were?

Remarkably I do. I learned of reading a book called "the infiltrator" a continuation of the T2 series. It was a good book...

But what's your point?

 

[Jet Black]

Maybe I'm even sadder. I think God could have put the light wherever he chose to. Since He put the stars billions of light years away, He had a reason. Maybe He chose to advance how far the light had traveled simply so we could have a prettier night sky to look at. Dunno. I'm not yet in a position to ask. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it's the most important thing to worry about in the Bible, nor the most important question. God could have done whatever He wanted to with the light, He created it. He could put it wherever He darn well pleased. Why not?

If we believe in a God that created the earth and cosmos in 6 days, <collective we meaning believers in the Bible, not necessarily me and you, as I don't know if you believe the same> what on earth prevents us from believing He didn't have the stars and the skies mapped out for us as well?

that's deception though. creating something that never really happened. It isn't just the light but everything else, the appearance of short lived radioactive isotopes around SN1987A (A supernova that exploded in 1987 - well actually it exploded a long time before that, but we didn't see it until later), the neutrino pulse from SN1987A, the clouds around SN1987A that allow us to triangulate it's position at several tens of thousands of light years away and so on that were never really puffed off the star (i.e. the star looks old too) all this is just a vast cosmic deception.

 

[nyjbarnes]

This is the stupidest thing I have heard/seen/encountered in at least the last two hours. This time, bevets, I don't even care if this is a shamelessly mined quote. It's stupid.

Man philosoft, you said that same thing about one of my posts in another thread....did you eat something that didn't agree with you?

You are really angry tonight...

pssst btw, how do you get away with this flaming? I always get in trouble for it...albeit I don't call anyone or their ideas stupid....not to mention twice in a single post.

 

[Jet Black]

Adam was fully mature when he was created, so were the trees. I don't see the problem with starlight. God created a mature universe. He's God after all...That's no harder to do than raising a man from the dead!

again deception. what is "mature"? why would trees be created with rings indicating that they are older than they are. would adam have been created with a scar on his leg from a childhood accident he never had? did adam have a naval? again the appearance of age argument is deceptive, you don't want a deceptive God do you?

 

[Philosoft]

I went out to the Rockies straight to Denver, right to Cody Wyoming - I saw God's creation and no typed words could express the magnitude of what my eyes perceived. In the same way I can't describe what my faith in the literal translation of scripture has meant to me.

Easy. It goes by various monikers: vanity, conceit, smugness, narcissism, pride, ego...