Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[BrianJK]

Why would we have to take demonstrable facts on faith?

You can demonstrate that something is billions of years old without any faith in the means by which you demonstrated it?

 

[BrianJK]

Yet, when you cross the street, or take an airplane flight your faith is in the the "evidence" and the "facts," and not in the Word of God.

The Word of God says nothing about those things.

 

[freezerman2000]

The Bible was intended to be a guide on our spiritual path to God and our relationship with Him..not a text book on the physical world.
Did you not say earlier that you a some kind of scientist?
If you are,what we are asking for should pose no problem for you..
Tell us about the physical processes involved.

 

[lasthero]

You seems to think I need to deeply study something before not believing it.

With all due respect, you're putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the kind, nor do I think that. My only question was what you feel the problem with dating methods are. It seems to just come down to your incredulity on the matter, and not any specific flaw in the systems - as in 'It can't be done because I don't see how it can be done'. That's an argument from incredulity.

I was really wondering how one can calibrate something over a period of a few years that is designed to measure billions.

Not all dating techique can be used to measure things billions. Are you okay with techniques that measure shorter lengths of time, say, in the tens of thousands?

My first thought would be to rethink the equipment and methods behind the dating

How? In what way? And if you do rethink and come to the conclusion that you're getting accurate results, what then?

 

[Loudmouth]

You can demonstrate that something is billions of years old without any faith in the means by which you demonstrated it?

I can demonstrate that a rock is billions of years old using the facts.

What facts do you have demonstrating that the Earth is 6,000 years old?

 

[BrianJK]

The facts are the evidence. Why do you have to run away from the facts in order to still believe in the Bible?

So you have no faith in the facts? Really?

The things you call facts are only things in which you have faith. They seem factual to you, I'm sure.

 

[Loudmouth]

Insults now?

If you hold what scientists call evidence over God's Word, that is on you.

I worship God and believe what He says. If you find worshipping God to be idolatry, I think you're confused as to what that means.

You worship the Bible. You hold the writings of men over what is found in the creation itself.

 

[Loudmouth]

The things you call facts are only things in which you have faith. They seem factual to you, I'm sure.

So the ratio of potassium and argon in rocks is not factual? It is just made up by scientists?

 

[BrianJK]

I can demonstrate that a rock is billions of years old using the facts.

What facts do you have demonstrating that the Earth is 6,000 years old?

Why do you think they are "facts"?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do you think they are "facts"?

Because they are based on empirical measurements.

 

[BrianJK]

The Bible was intended to be a guide on our spiritual path to God and our relationship with Him..not a text book on the physical world.
Did you not say earlier that you a some kind of scientist?
If you are,what we are asking for should pose no problem for you..
Tell us about the physical processes involved.

The Bible was intended as an history as well.

I am not a scientist.

 

[BrianJK]

With all due respect, you're putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the kind, nor do I think that. My only question was what you feel the problem with dating methods are. It seems to just come down to your incredulity on the matter, and not any specific flaw in the systems - as in 'It can't be done because I don't see how it can be done'. That's an argument from incredulity.

Not all dating techique can be used to measure things billions. Are you okay with techniques that measure shorter lengths of time, say, in the tens of thousands?

How? In what way? And if you do rethink and come to the conclusion that you're getting accurate results, what then?

I don't see how incorrect results could be accurate.

And tens of thousands? No. I'd be skeptical of something that says they could accurately date in the hundreds without turning to recorded history for authentication.

 

[BrianJK]

Because they are based on empirical measurements.

In whose means of measuring you have faith...

 

[lasthero]

You can demonstrate that something is billions of years old without any faith in the means by which you demonstrated it?

Depends on what you mean by faith.

If there was just one dating technique, you might have a point. But multiple dating techniques are used to date things. Dating techniques are often calibrated using objects of known age - they test them on things that they know the age for to make sure the technique is working properly.

If it was just one dating technique bringing back a single result, then I, personall, would be very open to the idea that the system could be flawed. But it's not. If that were the case, then techniques done using completely different methods would bring back completely different results - but that doesn't happen.

So, basically, if the dating techniques are wrong, they're wrong in the exact same way. What are the odds of measuring something with one technique and getting a billion years, then measuring it with a technique that works in a completely different way and getting the same result? If they were both broken and unreliable, you wouldn't expect them to tell you the same thing - they're on different systems, so what's messing up one system couldn't affect the other. You would expect the two systems to give you wildly different results...but they match up. What's the explanation for that? Pure coincidence? A coincidence that's occurred every time someone's compared two different systems and gotten the same results?

 

[bhsmte]

The Bible was intended as an history as well.

I am not a scientist.

Brian,

You should do some reading on the work of biblical historians and scholars, the folks who study the bible for a living.

If you do, you will find that the majority of historians/scholars do not claim the bible should be viewed as an accurate book of history, but should be viewed as a book of theology.

 

[lasthero]

I don't see how incorrect results could be accurate.

And tens of thousands? No. I'd be skeptical of something that says they could accurately date in the hundreds without turning to recorded history for authentication.

What if they do turn to recorded history for authentication? If we measure an object with known age and find it to be as old as the object records itself to be - say, we use wood found in a grave with a marked age on it. If the measurement turns out to be accurate, why can't we then go to measure things that are older?

 

[Loudmouth]

In whose means of measuring you have faith...

The means that have been shown to work through empirical means. Do you know how facts work? Do you know what they are?

 

[Subduction Zone]

in your mind

What do you men "believing God"? They decided not to believe a book written by dyspetic sheep herders that has hundreds of self contradictions in it and if anything they decided to believe what God actually wrote.

People claim contradictions all the time but I have yet to see a real contradiction in Scripture.[/QUOTE]


So you admit that you have never read your Bible.

At least that is a start. There are hundreds of contradictions in the Bible. Even in describing the empty tomb of Jesus.

As far as "believing God", if you believe that God created the Earth perhaps you should see what the Earth has to say. It says there was no flood and it was known to be at least hundreds of millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented. Debunking radiometric dating would not be evidence for a young Earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible was intended as an history as well.

I am not a scientist.

No, the Bible is a guide only. You are breaking one of the commandments by turning the Bible into an object of worship.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The things you call facts are only things in which you have faith. They seem factual to you, I'm sure.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "faith".

Scientific methods have to earn the respect they are given. Peoples acceptance of results is not based upon faith, aka ignorance.