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

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, pretty much.

Jesus was placed on trial six times, and still He was crucified.

Just putting a person/doctrine on trial once is good enough for you guys, isn't it?

What's the name of that recent trial we lost that you guys do an Arab celebration over?

I can't remember it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why?

So if we lost the case, you guys could have fodder for further ridicule?

You mean when you lose the case, don't you, AV?

Sending Christian doctrine through the courts is almost like putting a Jew on trial in the Third Reich anymore.

The courts, the classroom, the laboratories... seems like "Christian doctrine" doesn't work anywhere you need it to be, eh AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

I suspect they'd laugh as hard as we do.

In the streets ... right?

[youtube]HRA0NKQ0k6E[/youtube]

 

[lasthero]

Jesus was placed on trial six times, and still He was crucified.

Just putting a person/doctrine on trial once is good enough for you guys, isn't it?

What's the name of that recent trial we lost that you guys do an Arab celebration over?

I can't remember it.

I don't know. Who is 'we'? And I'm not talking about putting Christianity on trial.

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean when you lose the case, don't you, AV?

Let's hope it's not that bad yet ... but getting there.

The courts, the classroom, the laboratories... seems like "Christian doctrine" doesn't work anywhere you need it to be, eh AV?

Not even the Internet.

 

[TLK Valentine]

In the streets ... right?

That'd be dangerous -- we prefer to laugh on the sidewalks.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Let's hope it's not that bad yet ... but getting there.

What hope? You've already thrown in the towel, remember?

Not even the Internet.

You're admitting that Christian doctrine is a failure? That's unlike you, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

That'd be dangerous -- we prefer to laugh on the sidewalks.

Sounds like you've been to a few.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're admitting that Christian doctrine is a failure? That's unlike you, AV.

Cute.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sounds like you've been to a few.

Cross on the green, not in between!

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe I've done that many times.

"My" proposed maturity is sans history.

So the difference would be: the passage of time.

So how would the features of a 50 million year old rock differ from a rock created with maturity just 6,000 years ago? Show us the difference between maturity and history as it applies to the features found in rocks.

 

[KWCrazy]

Which brings us to another problem. No one can be sure what Jesus actually spoke of and what he didn't speak of. How much of what the bible attributes to him was simply made up and how much really came out of his mouth? That is a question that no one will ever know the answer to.

How does anyone even know that any of them existed? How doe we know that any of it is true? If we didn't see the events, how can we believe them?

That's called faith, by the way. If any of it is a lie, it's all a lie. You can add truth to a lie to make it more believable, but adding a lie to truth makes it a lie.

 

[lasthero]

That's called faith, by the way.

When a jury convicts a man of a crime they didn't see him commit, are they doing so by faith?

 

[bhsmte]

How does anyone even know that any of them existed? How doe we know that any of it is true? If we didn't see the events, how can we believe them?

That's called faith, by the way. If any of it is a lie, it's all a lie. You can add truth to a lie to make it more believable, but adding a lie to truth makes it a lie.

I have zero problem with those who claim their belief on faith, no problem what so ever.

 

[Loudmouth]

How does anyone even know that any of them existed? How doe we know that any of it is true? If we didn't see the events, how can we believe them?

That's called faith, by the way. If any of it is a lie, it's all a lie. You can add truth to a lie to make it more believable, but adding a lie to truth makes it a lie.

When everything in science has to be wrong in order for the stories in the Bible to be true, shouldn't that send up red flags?

 

[KWCrazy]

Well, then I guess you agree that "If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse."

Absolutely not because science is not dependent on any theory of origins to study what is observable and testable today. That makes about as much sense as saying that you can't follow NASCAR without understanding the Infield Fly Rule.

 

[KWCrazy]

Right, it is contrary with all of science. Everything in science has to be wrong in order for creationism to be true.

Everything? You mean that if God created the world as He said He did, then we no longer know the boiling point of water? The kindling point of paper? We no longer understand that objects in motion tend to stay in motion? The horror. The HORROR!!!!

Or should I say, the ignorance.

 

[lasthero]

We no longer understand that objects in motion tend to stay in motion?

Actually, yes.

tumbling asteroids and creationism part 2 - ozmoroid bloviates - YouTube

 

[bhsmte]

Everything? You mean that if God created the world as He said He did, then we no longer know the boiling point of water? The kindling point of paper? We no longer understand that objects in motion tend to stay in motion? The horror. The HORROR!!!!

Or should I say, the ignorance.

KW,

If their is a God capable of creating the world, would he be capable of creating or making sure the book that tells his story would be a book that showed knowledge only a God would have? Would he be capable of creating a book that was not full contradictions, errors and some immoral behavior?

Why would a God great enough to create the entire universe, allow a book about him that can be questioned on some many levels? Why would he want to leave so many doubts or disbelief, in those that chose to think logically and rationally?

 

[OllieFranz]

Everything? You mean that if God created the world as He said He did, then we no longer know the boiling point of water? The kindling point of paper? We no longer understand that objects in motion tend to stay in motion? The horror. The HORROR!!!!

Or should I say, the ignorance.

That is exactly what we mean. If Creationism ever proves Evolution to be wrong, then it proves that the method by which the laws of evolution were derived can produce error. Everything else that those principles derived is no longer certain. Just because we measured boiling water at F212 and paper burning as F451 yesterday, we would have no reason to expect those events to happen today.

Evolution was hypothesized and tested under the same principles as any other science, the underlying method and principles known as the scientific method. All the most basic principles of every branch of science is revealed in this way. If you attack this foundation, everything built atop the foundation becomes shakey and unsafe.