What Makes Creationism a Valid Scientific Alternative?

[46AND2]

You keep changing the subject. That's why I stopped with your very first sentence above. When I pointed out the error of your claims about soteriology, you changed the goalposts to general theology. No, I'm not playing that game. A game is all it is. Too lame for me. (Moreover, whatever fights you have with others on various theological battlefields are not my fights. Find someone else to play with.)

You must have missed the part where I gave several examples of different beliefs about what is required for salvation.

Why should only soteriology count, anyway? It's all supposed to be God's words. My ORIGINAL point was on general theology, and the salvation doctrine was merely an example of one of the most egregious problems.

This was my first post on the subject: http://www.christianforums.com/t7700298-9/#post61787489

It says nothing in there about soteriology alone being the subject. BUT, I also gave you several examples of what I was talking about concerning salvation.

I'm not moving the goalposts at all. The goalposts always were centered on the Bible in general.

If I had subsequently started talking about the Book of Mormon, you'd have a point, but now it just sounds like sour grapes.

 

[quilbilly]

It seems to me the question is still if the HG guides you to the correct interpretation why are there different interpretations?
Seems like a straight forward question to me

 

[46AND2]

You keep changing the subject. That's why I stopped with your very first sentence above. When I pointed out the error of your claims about soteriology, you changed the goalposts to general theology. No, I'm not playing that game. A game is all it is. Too lame for me. (Moreover, whatever fights you have with others on various theological battlefields are not my fights. Find someone else to play with.)

Furthermore, you didn't point out any errors at all. You CLAIMED that it was only in the details that people disagree. However, I responded by giving examples that were not just simple details, but important tenets of the doctrine, indicating that many groups believe these things about salvation to the extent of exclusion of eternal life to those who don't agree. If you only do some of the requirements that you believe are sufficient, and are wrong and miss God's true requirements, that's pretty dang important, don't you think?

And you have not responded to that point at all. So where, exactly, did you point out my errors?

 

[Trogool]

The current treatment of young-age creationists in the scientific community and society at large is unfair and unwise. Scientists and philosophers of science, including old-age creationists and naturalists, should respect young-age creationists as legitimate contributors to science.

Except they don't contribute. At all.

Young-age creationists offer to the current origins science establishment a competing rational viewpoint that will augment fruitful scientific investigation through increased accountability for scientists, introduction of original hypotheses and general epistemic improvement.

No, they don't. "God did it!" isn't a rational viewpoint, and there is no competition.

It is no secret; young-age creationists have a poor reputation in the scientific community at large. Those working from a biblical young-age perspective receive criticism not only from naturalists but also from progressive creationists who hold the earth to be billions of years old.

Some may wish to quibble over the definition of science. One may insist that science proceed only upon testable hypotheses, ruling out any ‘religious’ view from the beginning. I would not be the first to point out that, if no untestable hypotheses are allowed, evolutionary biology and uniformitarian geology are not true sciences either.

Evolutionary biology is testable. There are quite a few labs doing empirical research.

 

[SkyWriting]

The model of consistency.

There is the human perspective and the divine perspective.
They are not the same and yet illuminate the same Truth.
Basic basic stuff.

http://www.perspectivedigest.org/article/69/archives/17-2/interpreting-scripture-according-to-scripture

 

[46AND2]

There is the human perspective and the divine perspective.
They are not the same and yet illuminate the same Truth.
Basic basic stuff.

Perspective Digest : Interpreting Scripture According to Scripture

What does that have to do with the inconsistency of Jamin's statement?

 

[SkyWriting]

The current treatment of young-age creatio...<snip>

Violation of re posted content....reported.

 

[SkyWriting]

What does that have to do with the inconsistency of Jamin's statement?

God has provided scriptures, it's up to us to read them.



There is the human perspective and the divine perspective.
They are not the same and yet illuminate the same Truth.
Basic stuff.

 

[Trogool]

Violation of re posted content....reported.

From here: Why young-age creationism is good for science

Amusingly written by a philosophy major, explaining how that article manages to be so completely ignorant of the state of the field and scientific practices.

 

[46AND2]

There is the human perspective and the divine perspective.
They are not the same and yet illuminate the same Truth.
Basic stuff.

Interesting. So basically, a Christian can say something completely self-contradictory, and still make sense because it is in support of God.

That's handy.

Got it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Interesting. So basically, a Christian can say something completely self-contradictory, and still make sense because it is in support of God.
That's handy.
Got it.

This covers the process better than your one sentence does:

Home
Paleography
Ancient Writing Materials
Papyrus
Image of a papyrus plant
Location of papyrus growth
An Ancient Description of the Process
Preparation for Writing
Animation of Papyrus Preparation
History of Papyrus and Its Discovery
Parchment
Description
Picture of Manuscript Page
Ancient Description of Process
Jerome's Comments about Parchment
Ancient Writing Formats
Roll
Description
Image of Papyrus Roll
Codex
Scribes
Images
Personal Colophons
Manuscript Transmission
Manuscript Replication
Transmission Errors
Unintentional Variants
Errors Caused by Sight
Permutation
Parablepsis
Haplography
Dittography
Errors Caused by Faulty Hearing
Errors Caused by Memory Lapse
Substitution of Synonyms
Variations in Sequence
Transposition of Letters
Assimilation of Wording
Errors Caused by Poor Judgment
Intentional Variants
Spelling and Grammar Changes
Harmonistic Alterations
Corrections
Conflations
Doctrinal Alterations
Modern Critical Text
Textual Criticism
Brief History of Textual Criticism
Principles of Textual Criticism
Canons of Tischendorf
Metzger Criteria
Twelve Basic Rules of Aland/Aland
Hypothetical Text Types
The Alexandrian Text
The Byzantine Text
The Western Text
The Caesarean Text
Example of Textual Criticism - John 1:3
Alexandrian Text Type
Papyrus 66
Papyrus 75
Codex Vaticanus
Western Text Type
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Bezae
Codex Washingtonensis
Byzantine Text Type
Codex Alexandrinus
Codex 666
Text Critical Conclusions
Exercise in Textual Criticism
Simulated Manuscripts
Codex Michigan
Codex Indiana
Codex Illinois
Codex Rhode Island
The Original Text