Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's basic physics.I don't care about looking good. I gave my best attempt at answering your questions, they are there for all to see. I got a few right, probably most wrong. I don't know the bible. I freely admit that. I don't know creationism. But I am learning from this thread that creationist need to stick to what is literally in the bible, but it seems you are going above and beyond. So I am confussed on this aspect. Please explain.
From my pov its holding the bible up to ridicule.I agree whole heartedly with this.
If you are going to do pure Creationism then you shouldn't be using words such as "photosynthesis", "entropy", "universe" these are not mentioned in the bible.
Nor should you be throwing in terms such as "open system/closed system" or "Shekinah energy". These are also not mentioned or explained in the bible. They are simply not biblical.
They are embellishments awkwardly inserted to try to merge biblical understanding into other human realms such as science and rabbinic theology. Although I understand your intent is innocent, embellishing the bible is actually a way of corrupting the bible and in essence it is detracting from and twisting the very word of god. It is working against god rather than sharing the word of god.
In your case it's using the Bible to justify your ignorance and bigotry.It's basic physics.
Stick to the Word, and you get accused of not thinking outside the box.
Think outside the box, and you get accused of not sticking to the Word.
Mix the two, and you get accused of adding to the Word.
OK - Henry M. Morris clearly had no idea what he was talking about because of his ignorance of thermodynamics(a charitable interpretation)
It's basic physics.
The modern day application is to use the Internet to support one's confirmation bias.Its an ancient if not honourable tradition.
OK, so you are in a no win situation. I can sympathise with that.It's basic physics.
Stick to the Word, and you get accused of not thinking outside the box.
Think outside the box, and you get accused of not sticking to the Word.
Mix the two, and you get accused of adding to the Word.
OK, so you are in a no win situation. I can sympathise with that.
Why would being accused on not thinking outside the box be a bad thing?
For example a person upholding the constitution of USA as an originalist. It is not their job to think outside the box. It is their job to uphold the original intent of the constitution as written. Not to adapt it to modern times, not to make their own mark by embellishing it. The focus is the original documents and words of the constitution, not the person trying to promote it.
Given this, and what I have been learning in this thread it seems to me that a dedicated creationist should be referring people to the bible, should be answering questions that have definitive answers in the bible and should be saying stuff such as "that's not in the bible" with regards to things that are not in the bible.
They shouldn't (in my opinion) be portraying the bible as a source which is talking about photosynthesis or entropy or Shekinah energy, when quite clearly the bible doesn't mention any of these things.
I'm of course no expert on the Bible or creationism, but all I can offer is my own personal impression of understanding that a creationist is supposed to be a person who respects the bible as written, but here I am seeing a dedicated and loyal creationist who is embellishing and perhaps inadvertently corrupting the word. It seems to me to be quite dangerous territory for a creationist to embellish the bible.
Just my 2cents, not meaning to be an attack on you.
OK, so you are in a no win situation. I can sympathise with that.
That's the thing though. Isn't the position of "creationist" supposed to overcome this issue of having multiple denominations and sects all interpreting the bible differently?Lots of differentvsects of creationists, lots of different ideas about what the bible says.
Lots of differentvsects of creationists, lots of different ideas about what the bible says.
One thing that runs true though, is that a creationist simply
cannot ever be wrong.
That science may need to change as new info comes in is seen
as a contemptible weakness.
It certainly becomes very hard to listen to a creationist and be respectful, when they cast aside mountains of evidence and come up with positions that so go against what we know to be true of reality. Even logic seems to go out the window.From my pov its holding the bible up to ridicule.
i figure Ive more respect for the old book than to do that.
I’m a creationalist and yes in cases where science directly contradicts the Bible I’m going to believe the Bible over science because I believe there could be perfectly reasonable explanations why science is wrong. For example scientists claim they’ve found rocks hundreds of millions of years old but whose to say that those rocks appeared to be brand new the day they were created? They may have been created with the appearance of being hundreds of millions of years old the day they were created. What does a rock that was created today even look like? It’s my understanding that it’s not possible to create a rock in a day it takes an extreme amount of time to create so if God did create them in a single day then they should obviously appear to be extremely old on the same day that they were created.
Here is an article that talks about how scientists determine the age of rocksFor example scientists claim they’ve found rocks hundreds of millions of years old but whose to say that those rocks appeared to be brand new the day they were created? They may have been created with the appearance of being hundreds of millions of years old the day they were created. What does a rock that was created today even look like? It’s my understanding that it’s not possible to create a rock in a day it takes an extreme amount of time to create so if God did create them in a single day then they should obviously appear to be extremely old on the same day that they were created.
Just keep in mind that is not what Christians who don't take Genesis literally are doing. It is what creationists claim they are doing.Interpret the bible (to make it sound less absurd) then you are just making stuff up to fit your own biases.
"Blithering ignorance" if we choose not be charitable.
But still they invoke... (apologies to Galileo).But we have to remember that once "God" enters through the door, thermodynamics (as well as the rest of physics) goes out the window. To even invoke science at that point serves no purpose but to give the illusion of credibility to pseudoscience.
But why create rocks that look ancient, show evidence of a long history of layered deposition, with volcanic and tectonic activity, and even contain fossils of ancient creatures that match an evolutionary history that 'never happened'? Isn't that a bit odd, not to say deceitful?I’m a creationalist and yes in cases where science directly contradicts the Bible I’m going to believe the Bible over science because I believe there could be perfectly reasonable explanations why science is wrong. For example scientists claim they’ve found rocks hundreds of millions of years old but whose to say that those rocks appeared to be brand new the day they were created? They may have been created with the appearance of being hundreds of millions of years old the day they were created. What does a rock that was created today even look like? It’s my understanding that it’s not possible to create a rock in a day it takes an extreme amount of time to create so if God did create them in a single day then they should obviously appear to be extremely old on the same day that they were created.
We realize your understanding of geology is limited.
It might be cool to learn some!
Age of rocks...
One created today looks like lava.
Splatters of hotvlava landing in water can turn to solid in minutes.
As for "contradicting the bible"?
It says Jesus is a door.
Ya wanna contradict that? Slippery slope, pal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?