Which theory points to God?

[The Lady Kate]

[/color][/font]

Okay, as a TE yourself, do you consider YECism an attempt to undermine your already established beliefs of an old Earth? Do you think YECism is a consiracy then? I think of TEism the same way you view YECism. Please stop with this non-sense.

I see YECism as an embarassment to the Christian Faith and to education. Nothing more.

Kindly do not presume to tell me how I see things before bothering to ask.

Ah...would you call yourself weak? Of course not. I think of myself as strong minded, just as you do.

Oh, I don't know... I freely admit that I'm completely helpless when it comes to oatmeal cookies.

Most people have no difficulty acknowledging and accepting their limitations and weaknesses... and in doing so, are "stronger" for it through self-knowledge.

By your own words, you are not such a person. Again, kindly refrain from projecting your own arrogance upon others before bothering to learn.

I understand you have a problem with my opinions, but that doesn't change them.

I have a problem with your opinions because they're pathetically uninformed.

Yes, I believe those who believe in an old Earth are being decieved. I also believe they are conforming to this world and using their own understanding of the world to construct something un-biblical and atheistic in nature.

So not only evolution is Atheism, but OEC as well? That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with...

IS this not what you believe also? You think YEC is wrong and that it is a big conspiracy to destory what you call truth. Me and you have the same view point, funny.

Don't flatter yourself. YEC is not about destroying truth...it has nothing whatsoever to do with truth. YEC, as a social/political movement, is about authority. Who has the authority to decide the Word and Will of God? YECs act out of jealousy and resentment because that someone clearly is not themselves.

God is never in a hurry. Creating something in 6 days is not fast for God. It is actually very slow. He did take his time.

But four and a half billion years is too slow, correct?

This is not just MY belief and you know this.

That doesn't make it correct and you know that.

This comment can be held true for both of our sides. There was no need for God to create at all, He could have been content just by Himself. I just believe that when He does something He doesn't lag. It just happens. Complete and ready for use.

And so you believe this. I, OTOH, see a planetload of evidence which leads me to believe otherwise. Feel free to ignore it at your leisure.

 

[Jig]

[/color][/font]

I see YECism as an embarassment to the Christian Faith and to education. Nothing more.

And I see TEism as an embarassment to the Christian faith.

Kindly do not presume to tell me how I see things before bothering to ask.

Ok...Just like how you presumed I thought TEism was a conspiracy? You asked questions and pharsed them to make it sound that it was my beilef. I never said anything remotely close to a conspiracy theory. I believe TEism isn't a conspiracy just one big deception.

Most people have no difficulty acknowledging and accepting their limitations and weaknesses... and in doing so, are "stronger" for it through self-knowledge.

By your own words, you are not such a person. Again, kindly refrain from projecting your own arrogance upon others before bothering to learn.

Just how you can call me weak, I can call you weak. Refrain from projecting my ignorance upon others, before botherign to learn? Wow! I was thinking you should do the same thing.

Please, you obviouslty would rather make me look like a 4 year old kid who is just pulling opinions out of my butt without bothering to research or study. Again, you are the one presuming things. I have done my studies and I have bothered to learn...thank you.

I have a problem with your opinions because they're pathetically uninformed.

Pathetic? Gee....your on a roll. I guess since we dont agree, you'd rather consider my ideas pathetic. Nice.

I don't consider TEism as "pathetically uniformed". They have some reason to believe what they believe in. They just choose to be bias when they hear the real truth.

So not only evolution is Atheism, but OEC as well? That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with...

I said they hold atheistic values. You already heard what I said about this, please don't play ignorant. An old Earth and evolution give enough time for God to be obsolete.

Don't flatter yourself. YEC is not about destroying truth...it has nothing whatsoever to do with truth. YEC, as a social/political movement, is about authority. Who has the authority to decide the Word and Will of God? YECs act out of jealousy and resentment because that someone clearly is not themselves.

TE is just a way to explain an unfathamable God's ways. Which by the way, can't be fathamed. So why try? You just dig deeper into deception. The Bible is clear yet you believe science is clearer...

But four and a half billion years is too slow, correct?

Yes. God could have created everything instantly. He prolonged this time by a few days to give the angels a show. Just long enough to show His great powers. Can you imagine a movie that lasted four and half billion years? Boring. Angels have a sense of time to you know.

That doesn't make it correct and you know that.

And that also doesn't make TEism correct either....hmmmm.

And so you believe this. I, OTOH, see a planetload of evidence which leads me to believe otherwise. Feel free to ignore it at your leisure.

Where is your trust in God? Oh, thats right placed in your own understanding of the world. (Proverbs 3:5)

Evidence is here. www.answersingenesis.org
And here www.icr.org

 

[shernren]

Ok...Just like how you presumed I thought TEism was a conspiracy? You asked questions and pharsed them to make it sound that it was my beilef. I never said anything remotely close to a conspiracy theory. I believe TEism isn't a conspiracy just one big deception.

The only difference between a conspiracy and a deception is that a conspiracy is perpetrated by evil men, while a deception is perpetrated by evil spirits working through evil men.

Please, you obviouslty would rather make me look like a 4 year old kid who is just pulling opinions out of my butt without bothering to research or study. Again, you are the one presuming things. I have done my studies and I have bothered to learn...thank you.

And you didn't know, for example, that dinosaurs stand up straight.

I don't consider TEism as "pathetically uniformed". They have some reason to believe what they believe in. They just choose to be bias when they hear the real truth.

That is a worse accusation than being pathetically uninformed.

Yes. God could have created everything instantly. He prolonged this time by a few days to give the angels a show. Just long enough to show His great powers.

Where in the Bible does it say so? Where in the Bible does it say that angels can get bored? Don't speculate, Jig!

Where is your trust in God? Oh, thats right placed in your own understanding of the world. (Proverbs 3:5)

Mmm. If you want to interpret that verse as "Science is bad", then AiG and ICR are bad for claiming to do science. What is the "understanding" that we are to lean on? Look carefully at the full couplet:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make your paths straight.

It does not speak of learning science from the Bible. In all your ways means in everything you do. What we believe is only important insofar as it affects what we do to the glory of God. If YECism is correct, then demons believe it too: what good does it do them? This couplet means to have faith to perform unbelievable things and obey God-given instructions, not to believe in a particular man-inspired interpretation of God's inspired holy book.

Ironic for a YEC to take Scripture out of context, no?

MC80a:

I don't deny that there are differing details within the context of the other religions' creation theories. However, the main point that I was pressing is that showing that a God created the universe, in fact does not show that the Christian God created the universe. Even if Islam really has no date details about the earth's creation (which verses, stumpjumper? I've only quotes from my Muslim friends), it too is bolstered by evidence that there was a God planning it after all.

You also mentioned Jesus being some book or something (symbolical I guess), but going along with this analogy, you generally can’t understand what a book is about if you start half way through it or even at the end! You can’t really understand the issues and why things unfold the way that they do. You don't have the big picture. To understand this, you need to start reading at the beginning – this is Genesis to Christians. It gives you the background information as to why Jesus’ sacrifice was made necessary, what sin is, what the penalty of sin is, why we are all sinners, why we have the law, and so on. I agree that the message of the cross is the main issue, but you need to read the start of this book to understand the middle to end of it.

Well, as an evolutionist who believes in a literal Adam this isn't very much a problem to me, but to those who don't believe in Adam, the story of the Fall is a story about the individual decisions we make as sinners. In that view we are sinners purely because we sin and not simply because we inherited that sin from Adam. TE or YEC we would both agree that we are sinners, we do commit sinful acts and Jesus was a perfect God-Man who wiped them away.

Turning the tables, could you please tell me how you can come to a God of love from evolution?

Yep, the same God of love who killed all the firstborn of Egypt, intended to kill all the indigeneous peoples of Canaan, who killed Uzzah for touching His ark of the covenant, who sent a plague on Israel because David took a census, ...

As to evolution: Love is definable only between beings who can choose to love. Therefore although God may have commended His creation I don't believe that He can be said to "love" His creation, the same way He loves us. Note also that any revelation of His must be read in the light of thse cross which is His definitive revelation. God is love, yes. God is also relentless and perfectly capable of using any natural means to accomplish His supernatural goals, gory or not.

How does God's wishing the universe into existence show that He is a God of love? After all, a deist God could also have wished the universe into existence and then vanished from it.

 

[stumpjumper]

Even if Islam really has no date details about the earth's creation (which verses, stumpjumper? I've only quotes from my Muslim friends), it too is bolstered by evidence that there was a God planning it after all.


Sura 2 30-38 is one recount of the Genesis creation accounts with Adam however there are no dates.

But, there are no dates in the Genesis account although we use geneologies to establish date claims.

I don't believe that the geneologies must, or were neccesarily written to, denote actual people but I think we might differ there.

 

[Jig]

The only difference between a conspiracy and a deception is that a conspiracy is perpetrated by evil men, while a deception is perpetrated by evil spirits working through evil men.

I'm not sure where you got those definitions, I'm guessing those are purely yours. I'll have to say...a conspiracy can also involve evil spirits working through men and a deception can also involve evil men with evil spirits guiding them. Your comment really doesn't make much sense to me. Deception is just that...the fact or state of being decieved...by one's own self or, I guess, by either evil spirit or man. But not necessarily one or the other.

That is a worse accusation than being pathetically uninformed.

I don't see it as worse...being bias just means you've heard all the infomation, but choose not to believe the half that goes against your previous already established beliefs. Thats why creation needs to be taught side by side with evolution, so kids don't grow up ignorant.

Where in the Bible does it say so? Where in the Bible does it say that angels can get bored? Don't speculate, Jig!

Speculate? You mean what we all have to do? Are beliefs on this topic are all based on speculation, assumptions, personal opinions, hearsay, theories, and faith. Nothings fact....yes, not even YECism. Just like how TEism is not a fact, too. I just trust in the Bible to be correct and therefore I have to decern science scriptually. If science contradicts God's Word, then it is science that is wrong, not the Bible. I take Genesis literal, because I'd be foolish to believe God with all His power couldn't create all this in 6 days.

Ironic for a YEC to take Scripture out of context, no?

As if a TE's context of scripture would be the same as a YEC's anyway, right?

 

[shernren]

I'm not sure where you got those definitions, I'm guessing those are purely yours. I'll have to say...a conspiracy can also involve evil spirits working through men and a deception can also involve evil men with evil spirits guiding them. Your comment really doesn't make much sense to me. Deception is just that...the fact or state of being decieved...by one's own self or, I guess, by either evil spirit or man. But notnecessarily one or the other.

Artistic license. hey, the implication is still that TEism is the result of evil forces and inherently evil. A deception is inherently evil. Are you going to hold yourself accountable to saying that?

I don't see it as worse...being bias just means you've heard all the infomation, but choose not to believe the half that goes against your previous already established beliefs. Thats why creation needs to be taught side by side with evolution, so kids don't grow up ignorant.

Ignorance does not involve a conscious decision. To be biased often does, especially after having seen both sides of the facts and consciously choosing one. This is an especially weighty accusation against people who were formerly YEC and now are TE, like me. I never believed in macroevolution until this year, so I had no "already established previous beliefs" to speak of besides that the physical world is fundamentally rational.

Yes, creationism needs to be taught side-by-side with evolutionism. I agree that there are holes that need explaining. But there is no need for equal coverage since there simply isn't equal weight on either side of the argument. Remember the thread I started some time back about "How would you teach ID?" The only real response was "We are too stupid to have figured out how this evolved, therefore it didn't." Science should not be taught in the negative.

Speculate? You mean what we all have to do? Are beliefs on this topic are all based on speculation, assumptions, personal opinions, hearsay, theories, and faith. Nothings fact....yes, not even YECism. Just like how TEism is not a fact, too. I just trust in the Bible to be correct and therefore I have to decern science scriptually. If science contradicts God's Word, then it is science that is wrong, not the Bible. I take Genesis literal, because I'd be foolish to believe God with all His power couldn't create all this in 6 days.

But some things are easier to speculate than others. It is easy to speculate that God created a rational world. It is hard to speculate that angels get bored.

As if a TE's context of scripture would be the same as a YEC's anyway, right?

A TE's context of Proverbs 3 would be.

 

[The Lady Kate]

And I see TEism as an embarassment to the Christian faith.

Well, that's certainly an original thought...

Ok...Just like how you presumed I thought TEism was a conspiracy? You asked questions and pharsed them to make it sound that it was my beilef. I never said anything remotely close to a conspiracy theory. I believe TEism isn't a conspiracy just one big deception.

A deception perpetrated by whom? The media, the school system, and the scientific community, correct? Remember, these are your own words...
Are these institutions working together or separately?

Just how you can call me weak, I can call you weak. Refrain from projecting my ignorance upon others, before botherign to learn? Wow! I was thinking you should do the same thing.

When did I call you weak? I pointed out that many people are capable of recognizing and admitting their own faults and shortcomings. by your own words, you showed that you were not aware of this... ergo, you are not such a person.

Please, you obviouslty would rather make me look like a 4 year old kid who is just pulling opinions out of my butt without bothering to research or study. Again, you are the one presuming things. I have done my studies and I have bothered to learn...thank you.

Unfortunately, you have apparantly not yet bothered to use what you have learend in your posts so far... remember, we have only your own words here to go on.

Pathetic? Gee....your on a roll. I guess since we dont agree, you'd rather consider my ideas pathetic. Nice.

I said pathetically uninformed. I consider your ideas uninformed, using pathetically as an adverb, not an adjective. Perhaps I should say egregiously, stunningly, or outrageously uninformed in the future?

I don't consider TEism as "pathetically uniformed". They have some reason to believe what they believe in. They just choose to be bias when they hear the real truth.

The real truth from you, of course?

I said they hold atheistic values. You already heard what I said about this, please don't play ignorant. An old Earth and evolution give enough time for God to be obsolete.

No, they allow God, in addition to His infintite power and infinite creativity, to show His infinite foresight and infinite patience. Why YECs are always trying to hurry God along, I'll never understand.

TE is just a way to explain an unfathamable God's ways. Which by the way, can't be fathamed.

Except by YEC, correct?

So why try? You just dig deeper into deception. The Bible is clear yet you believe science is clearer...

So YEC is an argument from futility?

Yes. God could have created everything instantly. He prolonged this time by a few days to give the angels a show.

So God was compelled to act to satisfy the whims of His own servants? All this time I thought He was the one calling the shots...

Just long enough to show His great powers. Can you imagine a movie that lasted four and half billion years? Boring.

So, God exists to amuse His angels? Gotta hurry things along or else they might rebel-- WHOOPS! They already did!

Angels have a sense of time to you know.

Says who? Angels exist to serve God. Whether He took six days, or 4.5 billion years, they're still on the clock.

Kindly tell me where you're making up this rubbish from...

And that also doesn't make TEism correct either....hmmmm.

No, we have evidence to do that. I'm not the one appealing to popularity.

Where is your trust in God? Oh, thats right placed in your own understanding of the world. (Proverbs 3:5)

Evidence is here. www.answersingenesis.org
And here www.icr.org

Unreliable, incorrect, and often-refuted evidence, you mean.

 

[Jig]

Well, that's certainly an original thought...

Especially since it was you who came up with the premise to that same statment using YEC in place of TE.

A deception perpetrated by whom?

Non-Christian scientists.

The media, the school system, and the scientific community, correct? Remember, these are your own words...
Are these institutions working together or separately?

There work using the same athestic systematic manipulation of public opinion created by the same noted non-Christian scientists above.

When did I call you weak? I pointed out that many people are capable of recognizing and admitting their own faults and shortcomings. by your own words, you showed that you were not aware of this... ergo, you are not such a person.

By implying I pointed myself out as 'weak' through your faulty reasoning.

I can recognize my weaknesses and still call my self strong minded. In fact, thats how one becomes strong minded, by understanding their weaknesses.

Unfortunately, you have apparantly not yet bothered to use what you have learend in your posts so far... remember, we have only your own words here to go on.

Mostly because you choose to attack my position and my understanding of things instead of the topic.
I listed my opinion...
You could have done the same, but since what I said hit a nerve you decided to try and make me look misinformed and unstudied. Nice. You've forced me to defend myself. I can do this all day long if you wish.

I said pathetically uninformed. I consider your ideas uninformed, using pathetically as an adverb, not an adjective. Perhaps I should say egregiously, stunningly, or outrageously uninformed in the future?

Good idea.

The real truth from you, of course?

I guess all the other YECs believe in something other than a young Earth. I guess I'm the only one.

No, they allow God, in addition to His infintite power and infinite creativity, to show His infinite foresight and infinite patience. Why YECs are always trying to hurry God along, I'll never understand.

They allow God only if you believe He purposely limited His ability to create.

But what I was getting at is....ALOT if not the majority of atheists believe the same concepts you believe in.

Do you believe in:
Cosmic evolution?
The evolution of stars and planets from gas?
Chemical evolution?
Macro-evolution?

Except by YEC, correct?

Yes...since we listen to God's Word literally and not just some big fictional story.

So YEC is an argument from futility?

This statement makes little sense. Lets reword it. YECs arguement is from uselessness?

I'm guessing your trying to say YECs argumant is useless. Which becomes a personal opinion that sounds bias. You find it useless because you can't let go of something you've believed in for so long and have told so many people. You can't say this about me because I was willing to correct my mistake from being a TE and changed openly to being a YEC.

So God was compelled to act to satisfy the whims of His own servants? All this time I thought He was the one calling the shots...

Yeah, I guess your right...why would God what to satisfy His creation. What was I thinking...I guess he doesn't care about how we feel.

God does call the shots, but He incorporates us into His equation.

So, God exists to amuse His angels? Gotta hurry things along or else they might rebel-- WHOOPS! They already did!

Your making angels out to be God's slaves. There is a loving relationship with them where they freely worship Him in praise for taking care of their needs.

Says who? Angels exist to serve God. Whether He took six days, or 4.5 billion years, they're still on the clock.

Kindly tell me where you're making up this rubbish from...

You've completely misunderstood or chose not to understand my whole comment on this. In one ear out the other.

No, we have evidence to do that. I'm not the one appealing to popularity.

Sure.

Unreliable, incorrect, and often-refuted evidence, you mean.

The same is said about your sources too...crazy.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Especially since it was you who came up with the premise to that same statment using YEC in place of TE.

Yes, I used it first, then you copied my own words. Hence, my ironic musing.

Spotting irony isn't your strong point, is it?

Non-Christian scientists.

What aboutthe Christian Scientists who accept the evidence which points to old Earth evolution? You can't wave a wand and make them go away...

There work using the same athestic systematic manipulation of public opinion created by the same noted non-Christian scientists above.

And that "systematic manipulation" is the by-product of a conspiracy, right? Or is it the conspiracy itself?

By implying I pointed myself out as 'weak' through your faulty reasoning.

It was when you explicitly labeled everyone who thinks differently from yourself as "weak-minded" that you showed your own shortcomings. Don't kill the messenger.

I can recognize my weaknesses and still call my self strong minded. In fact, thats how one becomes strong minded, by understanding their weaknesses.

So how about your weakness of arrogance? Have you understood that one yet?

Mostly because you choose to attack my position and my understanding of things instead of the topic.

If by topic, you refer to the OP, I happen to agree with it... in case you missed it. It's your stance against the OP that we're debating here.
I listed my opinion...

You could have done the same, but since what I said hit a nerve you decided to try and make me look misinformed and unstudied. Nice. You've forced me to defend myself. I can do this all day long if you wish.

Then feel free to defend yourself with something of substance.

Good idea.

Fair enough. I found your insights as to evolution, and the reason it is widely accepted by the scientific community, to be stunningly misinformed.

I guess all the other YECs believe in something other than a young Earth. I guess I'm the only one.

I was using "you" collecively as well as sinularly... YECs claim to have a monopoly on all Truths concerning heaven and Earth.... gets a little arrogant, no matter how "Stong Minded" some of them may turn out to be.

They allow God only if you believe He purposely limited His ability to create.

And since we see God purposely limiting His ability to do everything else, why should He not choose to limit His ability to create?

For example...If you were to step off the roof of a 10-story building, it would be well within God's power to extend His hand and stop you from becoming a stain on the sidewalk. But the smart money says He won't do that... not that He can't, but He won't. God chooses to limit His power and His involvement in His creation all the time.

But what I was getting at is....ALOT if not the majority of atheists believe the same concepts you believe in.

A lot of Atheists also believe that germs, and not demonic posession, cause disease... despite this being "only a theory."

Shall I reject all good science simply out of spite? Is that the Christian way?

Do you believe in:
Cosmic evolution?
The evolution of stars and planets from gas?
Chemical evolution?
Macro-evolution?

Yes, yes, and yes. And I believe in the Hand of God setting it all in motion.

Yes...since we listen to God's Word literally and not just some big fictional story.

Allegory is not fiction. Reading comprehension is another common weakness of YEC, I've noticed.

This statement makes little sense. Lets reword it. YECs arguement is from uselessness?

I'm guessing your trying to say YECs argumant is useless. Which becomes a personal opinion that sounds bias. You find it useless because you can't let go of something you've believed in for so long and have told so many people. You can't say this about me because I was willing to correct my mistake from being a TE and changed openly to being a YEC.

Reading comprehension...

You yourself said that it's impossible to comprehend God, so why bother trying? YEC thereby becomes the default position that requires the least amount of thinking, on a topic they've already decided is impossible to comprehend.

Yeah, I guess your right...why would God what to satisfy His creation. What was I thinking...I guess he doesn't care about how we feel.

He certainly isn't going to jump through any hoops to satify YEC whims... remember humility.

God does call the shots, but He incorporates us into His equation.

but perhaps not on the grandiose scale you would approve of.

Your making angels out to be God's slaves. There is a loving relationship with them where they freely worship Him in praise for taking care of their needs.

And what exactly does an angel need?

You've completely misunderstood or chose not to understand my whole comment on this. In one ear out the other.

Your comment was meaningless. You seem to think of angels as temproal beings, subject to the same weaknesses as us mortals. Dragging God's messengers down to our level is poor theology, wouldn't you think?

Sure.




The same is said about your sources too...crazy.

Another completely unoriginal (and baseless) accusation. At least you ended as you began.

 

[Critias]

Is it really necessary to personally attack each other in every debate?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Is it really necessary to personally attack each other in every debate?

Well, seeing as how I and other TEs are all "weak minded," I guess we just can't help ourselves...

 

[Jig]

And that "systematic manipulation" is the by-product of a conspiracy, right? Or is it the conspiracy itself?

Here you go again...

It was when you explicitly labeled everyone who thinks differently from yourself as "weak-minded" that you showed your own shortcomings. Don't kill the messenger.

Again you make it seem like I'm the only one who believes in a YE. Those who hold fast to atheistic theories are IMO being decieved. If you think that shows my shortcomings....okay. I'm sure your glad to have found something else to disagree with me on.

So how about your weakness of arrogance? Have you understood that one yet?

You know...if you'd stop being ignorant you'd realize I'm not being arrogant but have rational ideas that many others believe in too. I'm sorry, but just because this belief of TE tickles your fancy doesn't mean anything if all your doing is trying to undermine my character instead of my ideology.

If by topic, you refer to the OP, I happen to agree with it... in case you missed it. It's your stance against the OP that we're debating here.
I listed my opinion...

We are debating a pretty pointless issue, you've completely gone around the OP and have decided to attack my character, as if doing so would disprove my beliefs. I'm just defending myself. I understand I've had to counter-attack, but thats just part of the game.

Then feel free to defend yourself with something of substance.

You might want to listen to yourself. Your whole debate has had little if no substance. Your the one on the attack....the burden of proof is on you, not me. I just stated an opinion that is agreed with by many scholars and scientists.

Fair enough. I found your insights as to evolution, and the reason it is widely accepted by the scientific community, to be stunningly misinformed.

And your allowed to have that opinion. Just like I'm allowed to have mine.

I was using "you" collecively as well as sinularly... YECs claim to have a monopoly on all Truths concerning heaven and Earth.... gets a little arrogant, no matter how "Stong Minded" some of them may turn out to be.

As if TE's don't claim to have a monopoly on all truths, which is why they think YEC is wrong in all aspects? You bring up some really pointless arguments. They go both ways. Stop trying to make them seem like they don't.

And since we see God purposely limiting His ability to do everything else, why should He not choose to limit His ability to create?

For example...If you were to step off the roof of a 10-story building, it would be well within God's power to extend His hand and stop you from becoming a stain on the sidewalk. But the smart money says He won't do that... not that He can't, but He won't. God chooses to limit His power and His involvement in His creation all the time.

God's not limiting His power there, He's showing us that he loves us by allowing us to have true free-will. Your example can not be used against the reasoning or logic of God during His creaional episode in which the universe came into existence.

A lot of Atheists also believe that germs, and not demonic posession, cause disease... despite this being "only a theory."

Shall I reject all good science simply out of spite? Is that the Christian way?

Did I say "all" science is bad? Nope.

If science goes against God's Word, then which would you pick?

Yes, yes, and yes. And I believe in the Hand of God setting it all in motion.

Now, prove God didn't just snap His all-powerful fingers and all that "evolving" just didnt occur instantly without actually "evolving". You can't.

Allegory is not fiction. Reading comprehension is another common weakness of YEC, I've noticed.

It's nice that not only can you spot your own weaknesses but mine as well. You have no way of knowing what my comprehension level in reading is.

Prove the Bible's telling of creation is purely allegory.

Reading comprehension...

You yourself said that it's impossible to comprehend God, so why bother trying? YEC thereby becomes the default position that requires the least amount of thinking, on a topic they've already decided is impossible to comprehend.

Trying to comprehend God's Ways is impossible. It is better to hold a non-radical default position in which trust in God is fully present then a position that is pieced together with atheistic principals and a radical image of a God who limits His power. Of course, you'd disagree because who would want to believe God could just say 'one word' and have everything be as they should be instantly.

He certainly isn't going to jump through any hoops to satify YEC whims... remember humility.

Who said God would be jumping through hoops? Nothing is hard for God. You make it seem like my views would be a struggle for God.

And what exactly does an angel need?

God.

Your comment was meaningless. You seem to think of angels as temproal beings, subject to the same weaknesses as us mortals. Dragging God's messengers down to our level is poor theology, wouldn't you think?

Angels are subject to weaknesses just like us....thats why 1/3 of them are going to Hell. It is you, not I, who is practicing poor theology.

Another completely unoriginal (and baseless) accusation. At least you ended as you began.

That has nothing to do with disporving my point...your attacking me again, not my ideology.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Again you make it seem like I'm the only one who believes in a YE. Those who hold fast to atheistic theories are IMO being decieved. If you think that shows my shortcomings....okay. I'm sure your glad to have found something else to disagree with me on.

It's not so much your opinion, but the way you chose to express it. Do you honestly think you can call people "weak minded" and not expect them to be insulted?

And not ALL YECs agree on that... most of them can at least be courteous and civil about it.

You know...if you'd stop being ignorant you'd realize I'm not being arrogant but have rational ideas that many others believe in too. I'm sorry, but just because this belief of TE tickles your fancy doesn't mean anything if all your doing is trying to undermine my character instead of my ideology.

Take the beam out of your eye, brother...

We are debating a pretty pointless issue, you've completely gone around the OP and have decided to attack my character, as if doing so would disprove my beliefs. I'm just defending myself. I understand I've had to counter-attack, but thats just part of the game.

You put your own character into issue when you touted your superiority over others.

You might want to listen to yourself. Your whole debate has had little if no substance. Your the one on the attack....the burden of proof is on you, not me. I just stated an opinion that is agreed with by many scholars and scientists.

And I have stated a belief agreed with by far more... and backed up by evidence.

And your allowed to have that opinion. Just like I'm allowed to have mine.

And when you express your opinion in the form of insults, I'm certainly allowed to respond.

As if TE's don't claim to have a monopoly on all truths, which is why they think YEC is wrong in all aspects? You bring up some really pointless arguments. They go both ways. Stop trying to make them seem like they don't.

Of course I think YEC is mistaken... but I don't need to insult them to prove it.

God's not limiting His power there, He's showing us that he loves us by allowing us to have true free-will. Your example can not be used against the reasoning or logic of God during His creaional episode in which the universe came into existence.

Why not? Let's change the example, then. Instead of stepping off the building, you fall off it. You're not exercising free will on that one, and it's certainly within God's power to save you from a painful and messy death. Will He do so?

Did I say "all" science is bad? Nope.

If science goes against God's Word, then which would you pick?

That's a pointless question, because no science goes against God's Word, but only against how I or others may choose to interpret God's Word. Since neither I nor anyone else (except God Himself) is the final arbiter of what "God's Word" is, why should I reject physical evidnece in favor of my own ideology?

Now, prove God didn't just snap His all-powerful fingers and all that "evolving" just didnt occur instantly without actually "evolving". You can't.

Prove that God didn't snap His all-powerful fingers and create everything last Tuesday. You can't.

All we can do is look at what God has left behind and see what it certainly looks like He did. Combine that with the knowledge that God is neither a liar nor a deceiver, and the knoweldge that our understanding of all things -- creation as well as Scripture itself -- is limited and fallible, add a dose of good old-fashioned humility, and we come to the conclusion that the answers to our origins are not quite as cut-and-dried as we may have originally thought.

It's nice that not only can you spot your own weaknesses but mine as well. You have no way of knowing what my comprehension level in reading is.

Actually, I can make an estimate based on how you've chosen to read and respond to my posts.

Prove the Bible's telling of creation is purely allegory.

The sum total of geological, biological, astronomical, and anthropological evidence does not agree with a literal reading.

Either they're all wrong, or the Bible is at least partially allegorical. Occam's Razor tells us to go with the simpler answer.

Trying to comprehend God's Ways is impossible. It is better to hold a non-radical default position in which trust in God is fully present then a position that is pieced together with atheistic principals and a radical image of a God who limits His power.

In other words, it's the simpler idea which requires less thought. Precisely what I said before.

Of course, you'd disagree because who would want to believe God could just say 'one word' and have everything be as they should be instantly.

Not could, but would. And DID He do that? The evidence says He did not.

Who said God would be jumping through hoops? Nothing is hard for God. You make it seem like my views would be a struggle for God.

Not a struggle, but that He would act out of necessity. You think God needs to do things according to your interpretation. God doesn't need to do anything to satify anyone, no matter how effortless it would be.

God.

Appantly, to be amused and entertained by God. God had to work quickly.... mustn't keep the angels bored, right?

Angels are subject to weaknesses just like us....thats why 1/3 of them are going to Hell. It is you, not I, who is practicing poor theology.

So angels can suffer boredom as well as rebelliousness?

That has nothing to do with disporving my point...your attacking me again, not my ideology.

As I said, You're the one who put character into play. Surely you didn't think the "weak minded" would leave it be?

 

[gluadys]

If science goes against God's Word, then which would you pick?

I wonder. Can science go against God's Word and still be science? Whenever science is right about nature it must be right about God's Word as well, since nature is a revelation of God's Word through his creative work.

Science may not always be right, but when it is wrong it is just as wrong about nature as about God's Word. In other words, when it is wrong it is bad science that needs to be corrected.

Now, prove God didn't just snap His all-powerful fingers and all that "evolving" just didnt occur instantly without actually "evolving". You can't.

That is not a scientific proposition. Science cannot prove or disprove miracles. They fall outside of the parameter of science.

However, science can show that barring a miracle evolution is the best explanation of biodiversity given our observations of nature.

So the question then becomes: if God snapped his fingers and brought all species into existence instantly, why did he let it look as if they evolved? Why not let creatures look as if they came into being instantly and all at once instead of giving us a fossil record that shows faunal succession? (to take just one example.)

Trying to comprehend God's Ways is impossible. It is better to hold a non-radical default position in which trust in God is fully present then a position that is pieced together with atheistic principals and a radical image of a God who limits His power.

So what is your point?

That TE is not a position in which trust in God is fully present?

Why would you imply that? Or was it not your intention to imply that? If not, what is your point?

Of course, you'd disagree because who would want to believe God could just say 'one word' and have everything be as they should be instantly.

Why do you think TEs would not want to believe that? That is not the reason we don't believe that. The reason is that the evidence shows this is not what God did. It has nothing to do with our wishes. God is not required to cater to our preferences. So the onus on us is not to determine what God can do, or what we would like to believe God did, but to determine, as far as humanly possible, the truth of what God actually did.

 

[Jig]

It's not so much your opinion, but the way you chose to express it. Do you honestly think you can call people "weak minded" and not expect them to be insulted?

And not ALL YECs agree on that... most of them can at least be courteous and civil about it.

If you were insulted. I apologize. My opinion does not change though. The Bible has a word for people who don't trust Him...fool. Do you think God is insulting these people?

Take the beam out of your eye, brother...

If I had one in there to begin with it's been out ever since I became a YECist.

You put your own character into issue when you touted your superiority over others.

I never said I was superior to anyone. Just that I held a trust in a God that could create 'all' in 6 days. This IMO makes it harder to be a YEC than believing in the media controlled viewpoint of evolution, thus making those who believe in YEC strong minded and thus who fall prey to atheistic principals weak minded. Do I really need to repeat myself five times? This is my opinion. Deal with it. I know you think I'm wrong, and you know I'm not going to change my mind...so why bother trying to break me?

And I have stated a belief agreed with by far more... and backed up by evidence.

Prove this.

Also, your evidence is my evidence. We have the same evidence, just different theories.

And when you express your opinion in the form of insults, I'm certainly allowed to respond.

It wasn't meant as an insult. This is my true opinion, and I know I don't stand alone either. It's the same as you saying I'm wrong and your right...I could take that as an insult on my intelligence.

Of course I think YEC is mistaken... but I don't need to insult them to prove it.

I mentioned "once" that I believed TE's were weak minded for falling victim to atheistic principals in my whole original comment. The rest of my original comment went about answering the OP. You need to get over this one little issue. Seriously.

Why not? Let's change the example, then. Instead of stepping off the building, you fall off it. You're not exercising free will on that one, and it's certainly within God's power to save you from a painful and messy death. Will He do so?

God does not interfere with our lives to that extent. If he saved everyone before they died He would openly show Himself to us. This would mean we would no longer need faith to believe in Him since we know for a fact He is real.

That's a pointless question, because no science goes against God's Word, but only against how I or others may choose to interpret God's Word. Since neither I nor anyone else (except God Himself) is the final arbiter of what "God's Word" is, why should I reject physical evidnece in favor of my own ideology?

So the science behind the theory of the Big Bang (everything for nothing) and random chance life formation (life from non-living matter) is not real science? Who is to determine what is true or false in today's science? Not all science goes with the Bible. And that science is wrong.

Prove that God didn't snap His all-powerful fingers and create everything last Tuesday. You can't.

All we can do is look at what God has left behind and see what it certainly looks like He did. Combine that with the knowledge that God is neither a liar nor a deceiver, and the knoweldge that our understanding of all things -- creation as well as Scripture itself -- is limited and fallible, add a dose of good old-fashioned humility, and we come to the conclusion that the answers to our origins are not quite as cut-and-dried as we may have originally thought.

Remember we both look at the same evidence. I dont see an old Earth. I see a young one.

Actually, I can make an estimate based on how you've chosen to read and respond to my posts.

Just as I have done with you.

The sum total of geological, biological, astronomical, and anthropological evidence does not agree with a literal reading.

Either they're all wrong, or the Bible is at least partially allegorical. Occam's Razor tells us to go with the simpler answer.

Read "In Six Days". 50 scientists from these same fields discuss how the Earth is young.

Not could, but would. And DID He do that? The evidence says He did not.

The evidence says He did. Remember who your talking to now.

Not a struggle, but that He would act out of necessity. You think God needs to do things according to your interpretation. God doesn't need to do anything to satify anyone, no matter how effortless it would be.

To follow your train of thought....God does not NEED to create with evolution.

So angels can suffer boredom as well as rebelliousness?

Can they? Prove or disprove this. You can't.

As I said, You're the one who put character into play. Surely you didn't think the "weak minded" would leave it be?

Thus far they haven't.

 

[shernren]

Jig, give me a specific example of scientific evidence for a young earth. Even if it true I can show you how it doesn't point to God. are we on?

Oh and by the way, it appears I was wrong about dinosaurs' diets:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4443696.stm

It still doesn't change the fact that they stood up straight.

 

[Jig]

Jig, give me a specific example of scientific evidence for a young earth. Even if it true I can show you how it doesn't point to God. are we on?

Oh and by the way, it appears I was wrong about dinosaurs' diets:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4443696.stm

It still doesn't change the fact that they stood up straight.

Hmmm....

What about polystrate fossils like tree trunks running through rock strata layers supposedly representing many millions of years, don't these show that the strata must have been deposited in quick succession? The tops of the trunks would have rotted away, otherwise.

A Flood could account for this easily.

 

[The Lady Kate]

If you were insulted. I apologize. My opinion does not change though. The Bible has a word for people who don't trust Him...fool. Do you think God is insulting these people?

You are not God. His rules do not apply to you.
Jesus specifically warned against calling another "fool." Have you read Matthew lately?

If I had one in there to begin with it's been out ever since I became a YECist.

IF?

So you say now, but your words suggest otherwise... I repeat my advice to brush up on Jesus' words in the Gospel of Matthew.

I never said I was superior to anyone.

Other people are weak minded, you, supposedly, are not. How would you interpret that?

Just that I held a trust in a God that could create 'all' in 6 days. This IMO makes it harder to be a YEC than believing in the media controlled viewpoint of evolution, thus making those who believe in YEC strong minded and thus who fall prey to atheistic principals weak minded. Do I really need to repeat myself five times? This is my opinion. Deal with it. I know you think I'm wrong, and you know I'm not going to change my mind...so why bother trying to break me?

This is your opinion, that you are better than others. And you are too proud to change or even to admit the implications. Nobody is trying to "break" you, merely point out the direction your pride is leading you in.

Prove this.

Also, your evidence is my evidence. We have the same evidence, just different theories.

Fair enough. But how many miracles must God perform to make your theory correct?

It wasn't meant as an insult. This is my true opinion, and I know I don't stand alone either. It's the same as you saying I'm wrong and your right...I could take that as an insult on my intelligence.

It is one thing to say that another is mistaken.... quite another to call them weak minded for their opinion.
Surely you must know this, and yet you persist.

I mentioned "once" that I believed TE's were weak minded for falling victim to atheistic principals in my whole original comment. The rest of my original comment went about answering the OP. You need to get over this one little issue. Seriously.

That one little issue is an insult to your brothers and sisters in Christ, which you stand by.

God does not interfere with our lives to that extent. If he saved everyone before they died He would openly show Himself to us. This would mean we would no longer need faith to believe in Him since we know for a fact He is real.

Precisely. By why stop there? Knowing that God need not interfere in large, ham-handed ways in our personal lives in order to show Himself, why demand that He do so in matters of Creation?

So the science behind the theory of the Big Bang (everything for nothing) and random chance life formation (life from non-living matter) is not real science? Who is to determine what is true or false in today's science? Not all science goes with the Bible. And that science is wrong.

Except that this is not what those theories say. If you want to argue the science, argue the real science, and not the strawmen.

Remember we both look at the same evidence. I dont see an old Earth. I see a young one.

because...?

Just as I have done with you.

If you say so.

Read "In Six Days". 50 scientists from these same fields discuss how the Earth is young.

Only 50? Out of hundreds of thousands? I can find you as many historians who say the Holocaust never happened.

The evidence says He did. Remember who your talking to now.

What evidence? Remember, I'm looking at the same evidence as you, and it shows me that He did not.

To follow your train of thought....God does not NEED to create with evolution.

Of course not... God doesn't NEED to do anything. But He must have done it somehow, correct? Since an impartial, unbiased look at the evidence clearly points to and Old Earth and Evolution, and since God does not NEED to make anything look like something it's not.... well, you connect the dots on that one.

Can they? Prove or disprove this. You can't.

It was a question. This was your idea, YOU need to prove it. You specifically said that God acted in six days to give the angels a show. Prove that they needed one.

 

[shernren]

Hmmm....

What about polystrate fossils like tree trunks running through rock strata layers supposedly representing many millions of years, don't these show that the strata must have been deposited in quick succession? The tops of the trunks would have rotted away, otherwise.

A Flood could account for this easily.

Firstly: how many polystrate samples are there? Remember that this was supposedly a global flood. For this to constitute proper evidence for the flood one must find polystrate samples all around the world and prove that they were deposited at around the same time.

Secondly, this has already been answered by (sigh.) talkorigins, and until you can refute them this stands:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/yellowstone.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html

I could stop here but I've committed myself to delivering an extra piece of fun: even if it is true, it does not point to God! Let's go! We start with statements:

A: Polystrate fossils show that current fossilization theories are useless.

B: Therefore mass, stratized fossilization is consistent with a global flood model.

In the first case, A is plain wrong. But we'll assume for sake of argument that A is right. Even then, the link between A and B is tenuous. Polystrate fossils can only at most show that the rules of fossilization were violated where the fossils were formed. They do not show that the rules of fossilization were violated worldwide, which was what I was mentioning earlier.

But again, let's assume that there actually is a strong link between A and B. Let's assume that A is true and A proves B. The kicker is, that A and B cannot prove or even point to C:

C: Therefore the God of the Bible caused a massive global flood, just the way the literal historical description of the flood puts it.

Whoops! It was unfortunate of you to pick an example to do with the flood because there's a complete pantheon of flood myths to pick and choose from. The Quran has its own, the Chinese ancestral religion has its own, the Babylonians had their own, etc. All of these would have caused conditions suitable for polystrate fossils and thus polystrate fossils are as likely to point to those as they are to point to Christianity.

It's ironic that creation science doesn't even have to be wrong to be ineffective.

 

[gluadys]

Hmmm....

What about polystrate fossils like tree trunks running through rock strata layers supposedly representing many millions of years, don't these show that the strata must have been deposited in quick succession? The tops of the trunks would have rotted away, otherwise.

A Flood could account for this easily.

No it doesn't show that unless that is what happened. But in most cases the tops of polystrate trees have rotted away. What is preserved is only the bottom section of the trunks and remnants of the roots.

This happens when a forest is partially drowned for some reason. A forest growing in a marshy area, especially close to a coast is a prime candidate. If climate changes raise the sea level, the forest is slowly drowned and sediment accumulates around the submerged part of the trunk slowly. It doesn't decay underwater, but when it dies, the upper part does decay.

In at least one notable example, (Joggins, Nova Scotia) we have remnants of one polystrate forest on top of another. This requires:

a) time for the first forest to grow
b) flooding of the first forest and accumulation of sediment around it
c) lowering of the water level so the area is above the coastline again
d) time for new soil to accumulate
e) time to grow the second forest to maturity
f) flooding of second forest and time for sediment to accumulate around it.

How does a single-year global flood explain that?