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

[AV1611VET]

Why do you continue to reject Vishnu?

Do YOU accept Vishnu?

If not, is it okay with you if Brian doesn't, either?

 

[Loudmouth]

Do YOU accept Vishnu?

I am not the one who accepts anything a holy book says as 100% true.

 

[bhsmte]

Because they contradict each other.

Yep, thats what the believers in other holy books say about the bible.

 

[bhsmte]

Indeed ... and as Paul put it ...

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Notice, it's how we receive It that Paul is emphasizing; not how It was conveyed.

When in doubt, refer back to a bible verse, from the very book that is in question.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, thats what the believers in other holy books say about the bible.

Let's hope so!

 

[AV1611VET]

When in doubt, refer back to a bible verse, from the very book that is in question.

Would you expect any less?

 

[lasthero]

Apparently because they begin with the same incorrect assumptions about the world.

That doesn't explain why they all give the same answer. If they're all flawed, they should be giving back different answers. They don't.

 

[OllieFranz]

God created nature and can control it, but He does not control people's interpretations of nature.

Funny, this is the opposite of what you said that I was responding to. You said that God did not write the laws of nature. So did He or didn't He?

Joshua 10 has very detailed acounting of how God intervened in that day. There is no indication that Genesis has anything of the sort going on.

But we weren't discussing Genesis. We were discussing your claim that expecting the laws of nature to be consistant was disbelieving God, unless the Bible specifically said it was consistant, and yet you expect the length of the day tomorrow to be the same as today, even though the Bible gives examples of days that were not consistant.

Stop the bait and switch when you are caught out. Either admit you mis-spoke, and regroup your thoughts, or if more appropriate, admit that you were just saying the opposite of the other person's post without thinking it through.

 

[BrianJK]

That doesn't explain why they all give the same answer. If they're all flawed, they should be giving back different answers. They don't.

If you start with the same flawed information, it isn't unthinkable that you would get the same flawed information back.

 

[BrianJK]

Funny, this is the opposite of what you said that I was responding to. You said that God did not write the laws of nature. So did He or didn't He?



But we weren't discussing Genesis. We were discussing your claim that expecting the laws of nature to be consistant was disbelieving God, unless the Bible specifically said it was consistant, and yet you expect the length of the day tomorrow to be the same as today, even though the Bible gives examples of days that were not consistant.

Stop the bait and switch when you are caught out. Either admit you mis-spoke, and regroup your thoughts, or if more appropriate, admit that you were just saying the opposite of the other person's post without thinking it through.

Perhaps I was unclear, or are you simply playing a word game?

The way God ordained nature to actually work is one thing. What science calls "laws" or "theories" of nature is something entirely different, and sometimes, but not always, accurate.

And my claim, for the record, is that the days in the beginning of Genesis are actual days. There is no context to imply otherwise.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You must be reading a different textbook. I tend not to take religious advice from someone who denies God and refuses to discuss anything because they think they're right about someone else's faith.

I'm willing to discuss all sorts of things -- if pride keeps you from recognizing your own error because the wrong sort of person pointed it out to you, that's an issue you're going to have to resolve... either on your own or through prayer.

When you don't want to immediately dismiss my beliefs as not conforming to an unbeliever's understanding of faith, then I will be willing to discuss it further with you.

I wasn't dismissing your beliefs -- I was correcting an error you were making in something a mutual fri-- *ahem* acquaintance of ours would call "basic doctrine."

 

[BrianJK]

I'm willing to discuss all sorts of things -- if pride keeps you from recognizing your own error because the wrong sort of person pointed it out to you, that's an issue you're going to have to resolve... either on your own or through prayer.



I wasn't dismissing your beliefs -- I was correcting an error you were making in something a mutual fri-- *ahem* acquaintance of ours would call "basic doctrine."

Perhaps you misinterpreted what I was saying.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Perhaps you misinterpreted what I was saying.

Perhaps -- so come now, and let us reason together.

 

[OllieFranz]

Perhaps I was unclear, or are you simply playing a word game?

OK! That's a start. I'll even ignore the personal insult.

The way God ordained nature to actually work is one thing. What science calls "laws" or "theories" of nature is something entirely different, and sometimes, but not always, accurate.

Yes, science is a model or map of nature, not nature itself. I've always said that.

But it is based on observing and testing nature, and getting consistant results. Others have asked why various methods, based on differrent principles consistantly give the same results if those results don't correspond to something meaningful, as you have implied.

 

[lasthero]

If you start with the same flawed information, it isn't unthinkable that you would get the same flawed information back.

It's unthinkable for that flawed information to match up perfectly, especially when you go about getting it in vastly different ways. Why would two completely different methods of dating that rely on two completely different things get the same date if they're both flawed? Why would they match up if neither of them were correct?

Why would measuring a tree's age through dendochronology turn up the same age through radiocarbon dating, if neither of them work? Radiocarbon doesn't work by measuring tree rings, and dendochronology doesn't work by measuring carbon decay. Is it just coincidence that the dates match up every time, even though they're going by two completely different methods and working off different 'flawed' information?

 

[BrianJK]

OK! That's a start. I'll even ignore the personal insult.

I apologize if I've insulted you. That was not my intent.

Yes, science is a model or map of nature, not nature itself. I've always said that.

But it is based on observing and testing nature, and getting consistant results. Others have asked why various methods, based on differrent principles consistantly give the same results if those results don't correspond to something meaningful, as you have implied.

I can't attest to why several elements might give you similar misleading results. But if you guys say they do, I'll take your word for it. However, I see a few choices here.

1) God didn't mean what He said and was misleading the readers when He said He created all in six days and rested on the seventh, then told the readers to likewise labor six days and rest one. It would also be misleading when He said that by one man many were doomed when sin entered the world and by one Man many shall be saved from sin.

2) God meant what He said and was misleading by setting traps of similar wrong leads within the design of nature for people who aren't satisfied with the Word and feel a need for corroborating evidence.

3) God meant what He said and fallen people have, because they first rejected His teachings, found ways to explain away the truths the Bible teaches, thereby also misleading some believers in the process. Not misleading to damnation by any means, since acknowledgement of a time-frame has nothing to do with salvation, but misleading nonetheless.

Those are the only three options I can see. Option three sounds most likely to me.

 

[BrianJK]

It's unthinkable for that flawed information to match up perfectly, especially when you go about getting it in vastly different ways. Why would two completely different methods of dating that rely on two completely different things get the same date if they're both flawed? Why would they match up if neither of them were correct?

Why would measuring a tree's age through dendochronology turn up the same age through radiocarbon dating, if neither of them work? Radiocarbon doesn't work by measuring tree rings, and dendochronology doesn't work by measuring carbon decay. Is it just coincidence that the dates match up every time, even though they're going by two completely different methods and working off different 'flawed' information?

If one flawed system is calibrated on another flawed system, and a third comes in and is calibrated by using one of the first two, it would be very easy to see how that might work.

 

[lasthero]

If one flawed system is calibrated on another flawed system, and a third comes in and is calibrated by using one of the first two, it would be very easy to see how that might work.

Except that's not how it works.

Two different systems. Same results. If dendochronology doesn't work for measuring tree age, there's no reason why measuring it with radiocarbon dating would give you the same age. They go by completely different principles. So why would they tell the same age, if neither of these principles rely on the same thing?

It's one thing for the systems to be flawed, it's quite another for them to be flawed and still return matching dates even though the methods they use are totally different. And those are just two dating techniques. There are dozens of them.

 

[BrianJK]

Except that's not how it works.

Two different systems. Same results. If dendochronology doesn't work for measuring tree age, there's no reason why measuring it with radiocarbon dating would give you the same age. They go by completely different principles. So why would they tell the same age, if neither of these principles rely on the same thing?

It's one thing for the systems to be flawed, it's quite another for them to be flawed and still return matching dates even though the methods they use are totally different. And those are just two dating techniques. There are dozens of them.

Dendrochronology is a very common means of calibrating radiocarbon dating systems...

 

[lasthero]

Dendrochronology is a very common means of calibrating radiocarbon dating systems...

If the radiocarbon system was flawed, why would it ever match the rate of tree ring growth? Not to mention that while it's a common means, it's not the only means. Varve layers from lakes work, too, as do recently formed carbonate deposits. These and other techniques can be used to cross check, and they match up.