Which theory points to God?

Critias · Nov 18, 2005

The Lady Kate said:
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.

Only if they needed a show, would God would provide a show?

I don't need the talents I have, but God has blessed me with them.

God doesn't act because we need, He acts because He loves.

Jig · Nov 19, 2005

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

Yes.

The Lady Kate said:
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.

My words only suggest the opposite position you stand for.

The Lady Kate said:
Other people are weak minded, you, supposedly, are not. How would you interpret that?

I interpret it like this...

I truely believe that Genesis is literal. I trust God is powerful enough to do what it says in Genesis literally if He wanted too. I believe that science points to a young Earth.

Since you don't, I see you as a confused and decieved person. Just like how you see me.

So why would I think of you as stronger minded as me? Just like you don't see me as stronger minded than you. We hold the same view points.

The Lady Kate said:
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.

I used to be a TE. I was very bias against YECism. I studied both sides.

I saw a young Earth develop when all the evidence was put together. So pride couldn't of lead me to become a YECist, it was a greater understanding. Just like you say...your trying to point me in the right direction...I'm doing the same for you.

The Lady Kate said:
Fair enough. But how many miracles must God perform to make your theory correct?

Your trying to make me answer a question that has pre-determined my side as incorrect?

The Lady Kate said:
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'm entitled to my opinion. Just like you.

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

Like I said...I never meant it as an insult. I even said sorry. What are you trying to prove? I'm allowed to correct my brothers in Christ if I believe they aren't placing their trust and faith in God properly. ON any topic, not just evolution. I remember once where Paul tells Peter off publicly for seperating himself from Gentiles. Not to be mean, or to be insulting, but to give him a wake up call.

The Lady Kate said:
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?

Because we didn't exist yet. There was nothing to compromise. Also, no reason to prolong the inevitable. Note how quickly God made Adam. There was no reason for a slow and pointless drawn out process of infantacy or childhood. God just said the words and it was.

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

Ditto.

The Lady Kate said:
because...?

Because it does.

The Lady Kate said:
If you say so.

Thanks for agreeing.

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

That still doesn't prove me wrong. Just that there is a chance, but the same goes for you....so I really don't see your point.

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

The evidence = the Earth. Isn't it great that you can voice your opinions and assumptions publicly?

The Lady Kate said:
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.

God did not make the Earth look old...the Flood did that.

The Lady Kate said:
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.

The burden of proof is on you, not me. Your the one who disagreed with my original comment. You have yet to try and disprove me. All you have none is tried to undermine my credibility by contructing a case around me instead of the evidence.

shernren · Nov 19, 2005

God did not make the Earth look old...the Flood did that.

That's a new assertion to my ears. What do you mean? Which aspects of the earth's age can be explained by the flood? Don't worry, I won't call you weak minded even if I can disprove your points

Jig · Nov 20, 2005

shernren said:
That's a new assertion to my ears. What do you mean? Which aspects of the earth's age can be explained by the flood? Don't worry, I won't call you weak minded even if I can disprove your points

This wouldn't be new to you if you actually visited my sources and read them instead of pre-judging them as wrong and not giving them a proper look.

The Lady Kate · Nov 20, 2005

Jig said:
This wouldn't be new to you if you actually visited my sources and read them instead of pre-judging them as wrong and not giving them a proper look.

Well, in the meanwhile, how about giving us the condensed version? Just so we know what to look for in the actual source, of course...

Which of the numerous aspects of the Earth's apparant age can be consistantly explained by a Global Flood?

shernren · Nov 21, 2005

Well, I visited AiG's flood sites and I didn't prejudge their mammoth evidence, I disproved it. So what else is there? I'm assuming, of course, that you as a not-weak-minded YEC fully understand what they're saying and are academically competent enough to summarize it for poor ole weak minded TE doubter here.

Jig · Nov 21, 2005

shernren said:
Well, I visited AiG's flood sites and I didn't prejudge their mammoth evidence, I disproved it. So what else is there? I'm assuming, of course, that you as a not-weak-minded YEC fully understand what they're saying and are academically competent enough to summarize it for poor ole weak minded TE doubter here.

Do I hint sarcasm?

Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly.

"There are billions of fossil fish in rock layers around the world which are incredibly well-preserved. They frequently show intact fins and often scales, indicating that they were buried rapidly and the rock hardened quickly. In the real world, dead fish are scavenged within 24 hours. Even in some idealized cold, sterile, predator-free and oxygen-free water, they will become soggy and fall apart within weeks. A fish buried quickly in sediment that does not harden within a few weeks at the most will still be subject to decay by oxygen and bacteria, such that the delicate features like fins, scales, etc. would not preserve their form. Rapid burial in the many underwater landslides (turbidity currents) and other sedimentary processes accompanying Noahs Flood would explain not only their excellent preservation, but their existence in huge deposits, often covering thousands of square kilometres."

gluadys · Nov 21, 2005

Jig said:
Do I hint sarcasm?

Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly.

Formed quickly or the carcasses were buried quickly?

Why does the number of fossils imply quick fossilization?

And why does quick burial imply a global flood?

Emz198914 · Nov 21, 2005

this is a complex issue, theres so many different answers depending on ur stance, its a matter of opinion in the end.

The Lady Kate · Nov 21, 2005

Emz198914 said:
this is a complex issue, theres so many different answers depending on ur stance, its a matter of opinion in the end.

It is a complex issue, but this answer, I'm sorry to say, is a cop out.

A young Earth was falsified over a century ago by Christian geologists who were originally trying to prove it was young. There is no getting around this unpleasant historical and scientific fact.

The number of unbiased researchers who looked at the evidence objectively and came to the conclusion of a young Earth could be counted on one hand.

So while there are many ways to look at the evidence, the one that begins with no preconceived conclusions leads us where?

gluadys · Nov 21, 2005

Emz198914 said:
this is a complex issue, theres so many different answers depending on ur stance, its a matter of opinion in the end.

What the evidence points to is not a matter of opinion. But the willingness to accept it is a personal matter based on one's stance about the issue. People who are uncomfortable with the conclusions forced by the evidence will seek different answers or simply create them. That may be personally satisifying, but it is not science. And IMHO it is not respectful of God's creation either.

shernren · Nov 22, 2005

"There are billions of fossil fish in rock layers around the world which are incredibly well-preserved. They frequently show intact fins and often scales, indicating that they were buried rapidly and the rock hardened quickly. In the real world, dead fish are scavenged within 24 hours. Even in some idealized cold, sterile, predator-free and oxygen-free water, they will become soggy and fall apart within weeks. A fish buried quickly in sediment that does not harden within a few weeks at the most will still be subject to decay by oxygen and bacteria, such that the delicate features like fins, scales, etc. would not preserve their form. Rapid burial in the many underwater landslides (turbidity currents) and other sedimentary processes accompanying Noahs Flood would explain not only their excellent preservation, but their existence in huge deposits, often covering thousands of square kilometres."

Jig's article was from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/fossils.asp (primary source; since duplicated all over creationist web). First note:

Unfortunately, even though many leading evolutionists are now conceding that catastrophic, rapid processes are needed to explain many fossils, the average person is still left with this deeply-ingrained belief.

Note Carl's choice of words. "Many leading evolutionists" - as if the whole thing is under siege. "Conceding" - as if rapid fossilization is a defeat for evolutionists. "Deeply-ingrained belief" - comparing slow fossilization to superstition? And of course, no substantiating quotes. Let's see if we can objectively rewrite this.

Paleontologists are starting to acknowledge that rapid fossilization explains some fossils, but the average person does not know this yet.

Aww. Much less edgy. We move on.

If the fossil record did take millions of years to form, then the Bible is wrong about the history of the earth and life on it. Fossils show death; there are also many instances of disease (see T-rex with gout, e.g.), violence and bloodshed evidenced in the fossil record. So, if these existed millions of years before there were people, then the Bible is wrong when it indicates that these bad things are part of the Curse on creation, which only came about because of the rebellion of the first man, Adam, against his Creator.

Nope, maybe creationists are wrong when they indicate that these 'bad' things were supposed to be part of the Curse on creation. For starters what an honest use of apostrophes around the word 'bad'! Because we cannot assign ethical value to the death of animals, especially if it occurred before the existence of ethically accountable humans. Also, they seem to avoid the question of what would have happened to a world in which there was no Fall and animals would have reproduced ad infinitum, which in turn implies that God created the world planning that it would fall, which of course has dire consequences for Christian theology.

However, the Bible is the very Word of God, affirmed as absolutely true by the Lord Jesus Christ (e.g. John 10:35). Thus, we can expect the evidence to be consistent with what the Bible teaches, regardless of how many people believe otherwise. According to the book of Genesis, there was a global catastrophea world flood which by implication was capable of burying billions of creatures rapidly in sedimentary layers.

So, reasoning from Scripture, we would expect that most fossils were formed by rapid processes. What does the evidence show?

Mmm. What a long jump. They should say "reasoning from Scripture and modern science" - for as far as I know, Scripture never mentions fossils at all - but that would erode their reputation of being the scientific independents. Besides, modern science alone will tell us that rapid fossilization can happen. Amber fossils, for example, are rapid fossils.

The fish fossil shown here [Ed. note: Please see Creation 19(4):2425, September 1997; due to copyright restrictions.] is a wonderfully preserved specimen. Though not all are as beautifully preserved as this one, there are literally billions of fish fossils in rocks around the world, so well preserved that they still show details such as scales, fin structure, etc. In fact, most people would have seen such fossil fish at one time or another.1

What do these billions of well-preserved fossils fitthe common belief in slow and gradual processes, or the biblical implications of fast burial?

[followed by details of what AiG thinks happens during fish fossilization]

Sorry to burst the bubble:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fossilization.htm

Decay doesn't prevent intricate fossilization, it actually promotes it to some extent. Whoops. Looks like fact is stranger than fiction after all, as AiG themselves admit (and which, indeed, I do quote out of context - one good turn deserves another)

Sadly, the mindset of our culture is such that most people miss the obvious...

Jig · Nov 22, 2005

gluadys said:
What the evidence points to is not a matter of opinion. But the willingness to accept it is a personal matter based on one's stance about the issue. People who are uncomfortable with the conclusions forced by the evidence will seek different answers or simply create them. That may be personally satisifying, but it is not science. And IMHO it is not respectful of God's creation either.

This can not apply to me. It is a matter of opinion. I was once a TE and had no doubts in my head that the Earth was old. I came into the whole young Earth - old Earth issue very bias against the YECist position. I decided to study it and see what both sides had to say, thinking this should be funny. As it turned out, I slowly turned away from TEism because it made less and less sense. A YECist isn't what I wanted to be, but the evidence TOO ME points that way, so I have no choice but to believe in a young Earth.

Believing in an old Earth or a young Earth will not be a facter in God's decision on personal salvation. I also believe it is more respectful to God to believe in a young Earth, if I'm guilty of anything it would be on giving God too much credit.

The Lady Kate · Nov 22, 2005

Jig said:
This can not apply to me. It is a matter of opinion. I was once a TE and had no doubts in my head that the Earth was old. I came into the whole young Earth - old Earth issue very bias against the YECist position. I decided to study it and see what both sides had to say, thinking this should be funny. As it turned out, I slowly turned away from TEism because it made less and less sense. A YECist isn't what I wanted to be, but the evidence TOO ME points that way, so I have no choice but to believe in a young Earth.

An interesting story. Who was it that finally convinced you?

gluadys · Nov 22, 2005

Jig said:
I was once a TE and had no doubts in my head that the Earth was old.

Being TE simply means one accepts evolution as a valid explanation of diversity. In terms of the fossil record, it means accepting as valid the standard geological timeline. It does not, in and of itself mean a person knows how geologists established that timeline or what evidence convinces biologists of evolution. In short, one can be TE more or less by default (and this applies to creationism, too) simply because one has never heard the other side, not because one is knowledgeable.

I came into the whole young Earth - old Earth issue very bias against the YECist position. I decided to study it and see what both sides had to say, thinking this should be funny.

So one of my questions would be, did you come into this study with more than a jr. high level of understanding about the age of the earth and evolution? Did you have the information you would need to see the weaknesses of the creationist position? Or did you actually begin to address the issues as the creationist material raised them, and in the same manner it raised them?

As it turned out, I slowly turned away from TEism because it made less and less sense. A YECist isn't what I wanted to be, but the evidence TOO ME points that way, so I have no choice but to believe in a young Earth.

Clearly, I am suspicious of claims that a person has been swayed to YEC by the evidence. In most cases it seems to me they have simply accepted spurious creationist arguments without truly examining the whole of the evidence.

And when push comes to shove, I find most people who have moved to YEC have been more strongly convinced by theological arguments than by scientific ones.

But I always give anyone who makes the claim that they were convinced by the evidence the benefit of the doubt.

So what evidence in particular convinced you?

Jig · Nov 24, 2005

gluadys said:
Being TE simply means one accepts evolution as a valid explanation of diversity. In terms of the fossil record, it means accepting as valid the standard geological timeline. It does not, in and of itself mean a person knows how geologists established that timeline or what evidence convinces biologists of evolution. In short, one can be TE more or less by default (and this applies to creationism, too) simply because one has never heard the other side, not because one is knowledgeable.

I was given infomation about this, and most of my family memebrs are TE's. I had heard the other side's story (YEC), but never looked at the infomation they had. I only looked at pro-positive TE infomation. Plus, it's basicly the infomation I learned throughout school in biology class and such. Schools need to teach intelligent design too.

gluadys said:
So one of my questions would be, did you come into this study with more than a jr. high level of understanding about the age of the earth and evolution? Did you have the information you would need to see the weaknesses of the creationist position? Or did you actually begin to address the issues as the creationist material raised them, and in the same manner it raised them?

I actually studied the TE's side first. Then I wanted to see what the YECs had to say. I used to be Catholic, and my priest taught an old Earth. I was surrounded by TE's and believed them. Purely because I had nothing else to believe in and the evidence seemed to point to its correctness. I was convinced the Earth HAD to be old. Period.

gluadys said:
Clearly, I am suspicious of claims that a person has been swayed to YEC by the evidence. In most cases it seems to me they have simply accepted spurious creationist arguments without truly examining the whole of the evidence.

Well, this isn't the case with me. I was a true TE and was swayed to YEC by their evidence. I examined most of the evidence and had to sit down and make a rational decision about what the evidence was saying. I had to reluctantly stop believeing in an old Earth because it no longer made sense. A young Earth made sense with the Bible and scientific evidence.

gluadys said:
And when push comes to shove, I find most people who have moved to YEC have been more strongly convinced by theological arguments than by scientific ones.

To tell you the truth, I was convinced by both equally. Though, I studied the scientific parts of YECism first.

gluadys said:
But I always give anyone who makes the claim that they were convinced by the evidence the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you. You'd be right.

gluadys said:
So what evidence in particular convinced you?

Nothing in particular really. It all seems to point to a young Earth.

gluadys · Nov 24, 2005

Jig said:
Nothing in particular really. It all seems to point to a young Earth.

Well, what convinced you that it does not take time to form angular non-conformities, as Hutton deduced in the 1700's?

What convinced you that it does not take several centuries for one forest to grow on top of another, as they did in the multiple polystrate forests of Nova Scotia?

And have you ever read Glen Morton's discussions of animal burrows in the fossil record? How do you explain the existence of such burrows in a YEC scenario? Not to mention such geological phenomena as preserved nests, spider tracks and even raindrop impact craters?

Or what convinced you that tectonic plates can move rapidly without generating so much heat it would kill all life on earth, including life in the ark?

That's enough for starters. I can generate a couple of thousand more such questions about the evidence.

I would really like you to convince me that you were convinced by the evidence---that anybody could be convinced by the evidence. For I have never seen this yet.

The Lady Kate · Nov 24, 2005

gluadys said:
I would really like you to convince me that you were convinced by the evidence---that anybody could be convinced by the evidence. For I have never seen this yet.

Nor have I... which is why I asked who convinced him, not what.

Micaiah · Nov 24, 2005

And have you ever read Glen Morton's discussions of animal burrows in the fossil record?

My question is why there are so few burrows if we're talking millions of years and how come they retained their form so well over that time. Like you Jig, I'm happy to conclude the evidence points to a young earth.

gluadys · Nov 24, 2005

Micaiah said:
My question is why there are so few burrows if we're talking millions of years and how come they retained their form so well over that time. Like you Jig, I'm happy to conclude the evidence points to a young earth.

Where did you get the idea there were only a few? Some strata are honey-combed with burrows. They are not rare.

And the question for YECists is how come any burrows at all were preserved in what are supposedly sediments laid down by the flood. Under a flood scenario there ought to be none.

Which theory points to God?

Critias

Guest

Christ Follower

you are not reading this.

Christ Follower

The Lady Kate

Guest

you are not reading this.

Christ Follower

Legend

Member

The Lady Kate

Guest

Legend

you are not reading this.

Christ Follower

The Lady Kate

Guest

Legend

Christ Follower

Legend

The Lady Kate

Guest

Well-Known Member

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency