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

[KWCrazy]

There is no scientific evidence that supports creationism or the Ark myth and all sorts that oppose it.

Why do you believe in myths?

There is no science to explain UFO's, and yet there are many, many sightings that defy explanation; some caught on film.
There is no science to explain incorruptible corpses, and yet they exist.
There is no science to explain the son of God becoming man, dying on a cross in three hours, and rising from the grave on the third day, yet millions believe it happened.
There is no science to explain the appearance of angels, yet many have seen them and some have been recorded on film.
There is no science to explain demons, yet many have seen them or encountered them, and demonic looking images have been captured on film.
There is no science to explain the origination of matter, and yet the universe exists.
There is no science to explain the origination of life, and yet we are here.
There is no science to explain Near Death Experiences, yet they happen frequently.
There is no science to explain precognition, yet it does happen at times.
There is no science to explain apparitions, yet stories of encounters with "ghosts" predate the written language.
There is no science to explain faith heeling, yet a percentage of what has been claimed has actually been validated.
Of all the claims made by "scientists," the most specious and unfounded is the claim that the physical world is all that exists. Though it lacks the tools to study the supernatural world, so many take the stance that if you can't prove it that it isn't real. That level of skepticism doesn't apply to global warming, evolution, the age of the earth or any of the other pet theories people try to pass off as proven and accepted facts of science. It's sad that so many people are blinded by their ignorance of the limitations of science and have convinced themselves that what cannot be proven through science must not exist. Perhaps we should make a new law; the law of incredulity. If you can't prove it to me, it must not exist. I'm sure many of our members already subscribe to the notion.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The same science that allows us to tell if a person was innocent of a crime, that allows a day time TV host to say "You ARE the father!", is the same science that says there was no Noah's Ark, there was no Adam and Eve.

Isn't this a classic 'argument from authority' fallacy?

 

[Split Rock]

Perhaps I've overlooked it, but would someone mind showing me where in the Bible it states that the Creator stopped creating? I haven't seen it.

Oh,oh.... you'll get in trouble with my buddy AVET for that one! God stopped creating when He says "It was very good" and god rested on the last day.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh,oh.... you'll get in trouble with my buddy AVET for that one! God stopped creating when He says "It was very good" and god rested on the last day.

KW, that's what we (our church, et.al.) believe.

God rested from ex nihilo creation on the seventh day.

You're not in trouble, though.

 

[KWCrazy]

Oh,oh.... you'll get in trouble with my buddy AVET for that one! God stopped creating when He says "It was very good" and god rested on the last day.

The creation of the world was complete.
After the flood, God showed Noah a rainbow as a symbol of His promise to never again destroy the world by flood. There was no such promise to stop creating anything. There is no evidence that He has, and no evidence He has not. It is simply not addressed.

Cain went into the land of Nod and knew his wife. Was she his sister? Was she a fallen angel? The Bible doesn't tell us because that information wasn't important to the message given. Before we make any claims we need to make sure they are consistent with the Scriptures. If the Scriptures don't address the subject, by what authority can we say definitively one way or another?

 

[lasthero]

Some? Yes.

Such as?

There is no science to explain UFO's, and yet there are many, many sightings that defy explanation; some caught on film.

Because everything caught on tape must be real.

There is no science to explain incorruptible corpses, and yet they exist.

Has anyone ever gave these incorruptible corpses serious examination?

There is no science to explain the son of God becoming man, dying on a cross in three hours, and rising from the grave on the third day, yet millions believe it happened.

So? Millions of people can be wrong about something. The simple fact that a lot of people believe something does not, in itself, make that something true.

There is no science to explain the appearance of angels, yet many have seen them and some have been recorded on film.

Same thing with the UFOs. So what?

BLAH BLAH BLAH

So, your basic argument is 'weird things happen that science can't explain'. So? So what? There was a time when lightning was thought to be supernatural, it turned out not to be. There was a time where fairy rings were thought supernatural, they turned out not to be. What's your point?

Though it lacks the tools to study the supernatural world, so many take the stance that if you can't prove it that it isn't real.

No, many take the stance that, if you can't prove it, they don't have to accept it until you do.

That level of skepticism doesn't apply to global warming, evolution, the age of the earth

Yes, it does. Comparing these things to the laundry list you bloviated on is insipid. There's scads of research and time spent studying these things.

Perhaps we should make a new law; the law of incredulity. If you can't prove it to me, it must not exist. I'm sure many of our members already subscribe to the notion.

Skepticism and incredulity aren't the same thing. Just because I don't accept the existence of something without evidence doesn't mean I'm claiming it doesn't exist. For instance, I don't claim with 100% certainty that Bigfoot doesn't exist, but I find the evidence for his existence - a bad video, some footprints, and unsubstantiated eyewitness accounts - to be lacking. When the evidence changes, so, too, will my mind.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do the Scriptures have to be wrong for your naturalism myth to be true?

They don't have to be. It is you that insists on an interpretation that makes the scriptures wrong.

Nooooooo, you can see them form. You can't see them originate.

We can see zircons form in the lab and determine that they do not include Pb when they form. That is origination.

You can not see a rock coming into existence from nothingness.

No one is claiming that they do, except for creationists.

If it served God's interests to create a zircon crystal the size of a car by speaking it into existence, he could do so. Apparently your mind is incapable of grasping the fact that creation was not a natural process.

That is a bare assertion on your part. We are going to need to see some evidence.

However, creation is the only viable explanation for origination.

We can see zircons form in the lab. Natural origination of zircons is a viable option.

The fact is, none of the elements that comprise anything could have come into existence by any natural process.

Doesn't change the fact that we can observe zircons forming in the lab. We can observe their origination.

If you adhere strictly to the laws of physics, either the universe was created by some force outside of nature or the universe doesn't exist. If the universe was created, then the Creator could form it in its mature state as God did and as He said He did.

Why does the outside force need to be a deity?

If eternal life were given out freely to everyone it would have little value. The earth was created exactly as it was so that foolish people could make stupid decisions and have evidence enough to convince them their stupidity was actually wisdom. People with no faith look for answers and they find them; not the right answers, but answers enough to placate them. Plato's allegory of the cave, while very much resembling a movie theater, is indicative of the real world VS the preceived world. To those who will venture out by faith and explore the scary reality that our existence is only a temporary stop on an eternal journey, there is a much greater understanding to be found. Those whose eyes are blinded by their unwillingness to accept that there are things in this world that can never be explained through logic alone are doomed to follow their foolish misunderstanding to their own destruction.

Science can't tell you where you came from. Only God can do that.

So your only argument is that you are smart and everyone else is stupid. Wow, compelling argument you have there.

 

[Loudmouth]

The creation of the world was complete.

Then why does it contain a 4.5 billion year history? Was the world created with fossils already in the ground? Were rocks created with a fake history of radioactive decay already in them?

 

[KWCrazy]

Because everything caught on tape must be real.

No, but you have to have some level of skills to be able to fake it without detection. Some of the video recordings also have multiple eye witnesses.

Has anyone ever gave these incorruptible corpses serious examination?

Yes, they have. They have not been allowed to cut into the corpses an analyze the tissues because the church considers them to be Holy, but they are clearly dead, have been dead for many years, and were never embalmed.

So? Millions of people can be wrong about something. The simple fact that a lot of people believe something does not, in itself, make that something true.

Nor does it make it false. Would intelligent, well educated people continue to insist an event happened when they could avoid torture and execution by simply recanting? The early witnesses for the church absolutely believed the things they saw, and went to their graves convinced it was true. Your disbelieve accounts for nothing in comparison.

Same thing with the UFOs. So what?

So you can't say they provably do not exist. Any assertion that claims they don't exist is rooted in ignorance. Proclaiming they are all fake is only amplified ignorance.

So, your basic argument is 'weird things happen that science can't explain'. So?

No, the argument is that there are things science can't explain, and it's sheer ignorance to reject as false things which can neither be proved or disproved.

So what? There was a time when lightning was thought to be supernatural, it turned out not to be.

Irrelevant. Lighting is a natural occurrence. Even early man understood that it happened during storms. Supernatural things by definition do not occur naturally.

No, many take the stance that, if you can't prove it, they don't have to accept it until you do.

Some take that stance, and others say exactly what I told you they said. There are entire threads devoted to naturalism and the proclamations of many posters that it is the only "real" world view. You don't have to accept anything that isn't proven to you. that's your right. However, to reject it all as non-existent mythology is an exercise in applied ignorance.

There's scads of research and time spent studying these things. /QUOTE]
And every single model put forward by climate change frauds has been a miserable failure. Climate change alarmists are professional liars. There has never been any conclusive evidence that man's activities have a significant impact on the global climate. Even the Mt St. Helen eruption, which put more pollution into the air at once than man has in his entire existence, only cooled the climate one degree for one year. In other words, there was no significant impact.

Skepticism and incredulity aren't the same thing. Just because I don't accept the existence of something without evidence doesn't mean I'm claiming it doesn't exist.

And yet this thread alone has been filled with people claiming exactly the opposite.

For instance, I don't claim with 100% certainty that Bigfoot doesn't exist, but I find the evidence for his existence - a bad video, some footprints, and unsubstantiated eyewitness accounts - to be lacking.

I think that Bigfoot sightings are 90% fraud and 10% unprovable. I find it hard to believe that such a creature could exist undetected, but then again I don't have access to all the data. In the winter time, we could track him via thermographic imaging. Do we have such data? I don't know. Do YOU trust this government to tell you the truth?

 

[lasthero]

No, but you have to have some level of skills to be able to fake it without detection. Some of the video recordings also have multiple eye witnesses.

So?

Yes, they have. They have not been allowed to cut into the corpses an analyze the tissues because the church considers them to be Holy

Then they haven't really been examined. It's kind of hard to make any real judgment on something like that by simply looking at it.

Nor does it make it false.

I agree. I said nothing to the contrary.

So you can't say they provably do not exist. Any assertion that claims they don't exist is rooted in ignorance. Proclaiming they are all fake is only amplified ignorance.

I never said they were all false.

Also, now that I think about it, it's impossible for science to explain a UFO. UFOs are 'unidentified flying objects'. If we could examine them, they wouldn't be unidentified, anymore, would they?

No, the argument is that there are things science can't explain, and it's sheer ignorance to reject as false things which can neither be proved or disproved.

I would agree. I'd also says it's sheer ignorance to accept as true things that can neither be proved or disproved. The default position should be 'I don't know'.

Some take that stance, and others say exactly what I told you they said.

Who?

And every single model put forward by climate change frauds has been a miserable failure.

Untrue.

Even the Mt St. Helen eruption, which put more pollution into the air at once than man has in his entire existence,

Can you produce the data on this? I'd love to see it. Also, did the Mt. St. Helens eruption produce any greenhouse gases? If it didn't, why do you feel that's a fair comparison?

And yet this thread alone has been filled with people claiming exactly the opposite.

Such as? Who has claimed with absolute certainty that something must not exist because it hasn't been proven to?

Do YOU trust this government to tell you the truth?

Seem like kind of a non-sequitar. I don't think the government is actively searching for Bigfoot.

 

[lasthero]

By the way, crazy, at the risk of getting off topic, I found this.

Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nor does it make it false. Would intelligent, well educated people continue to insist an event happened when they could avoid torture and execution by simply recanting? The early witnesses for the church absolutely believed the things they saw, and went to their graves convinced it was true. Your disbelieve accounts for nothing in comparison.

Some people talk about a "yardstick" for truth -- others, a body count.

 

[OllieFranz]

By the way, crazy, at the risk of getting off topic, I found this.

Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

And that's only one side of the greenhouse gas issue. The other side is deforestation, which retards the exchange of O2 for CO2 through photosynthesis. Yes, volcanoes often destoy large patches of forest every year. Plus you can add in lightning strikes and other natural causes of forest fires. But the forest usually starts reclaiming those devistated areas immediately and has usually totally reclaimed it within a century. On the other hand, when man claims an area for a city, he deforests that area more completely than any of the natural causes, and actively keeps reforestation at bay for as long as he occupies the city. Which can be millenia.

 

[Loudmouth]

And that's only one side of the greenhouse gas issue. The other side is deforestation, which retards the exchange of O2 for CO2 through photosynthesis. Yes, volcanoes often destoy large patches of forest every year. Plus you can add in lightning strikes and other natural causes of forest fires. But the forest usually starts reclaiming those devistated areas immediately and has usually totally reclaimed it within a century. On the other hand, when man claims an area for a city, he deforests that area more completely than any of the natural causes, and actively keeps reforestation at bay for as long as he occupies the city. Which can be millenia.

Of course YEC's will deny this, but we do have a record of atmospheric CO2 in ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years through several ice ages. All during that time there were volcanic eruptions and forest fires, and yet nowhere in that record do we see anything approaching the current CO2 levels. I find it hard to believe that it is just a coincidence that there is a massive increase in modern CO2 levels at the same time we started burning fossil fuels.

 

[Aman777]

The creation of the world was complete.

Dear KWCrazy, The creation of the perfect third heaven is not complete, even today. Every time a sinner is created in God's Image, in Christ, another creation is added to the third heaven.

After the flood, God showed Noah a rainbow as a symbol of His promise to never again destroy the world by flood. There was no such promise to stop creating anything. There is no evidence that He has, and no evidence He has not. It is simply not addressed.

Jesus tells us that He and His Father are STILL working and the Holy Spirit continues to work Today, with the Church, on the present 6th Day or Age in the Creation of the third heaven. Jhn 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, (Greek-Up to the present time) and I work.

Cain went into the land of Nod and knew his wife. Was she his sister? Was she a fallen angel? The Bible doesn't tell us because that information wasn't important to the message given.

Cain married a descendant of the sons of God (Prehistoric people) whose origin was in the water, on the 5th Day. Genesis 1:21

Cain's wife was NOT a human because ONLY Adam's descendants are humans. with the highest form of intelligence in Creation. Like Cain, Noah's grandsons had NO other humans to marry. They married and produced today's humans (descendants of Adam) on this Planet. Genesis 6:4 tells us the combination of the sons of God and Adam's daughters makes mighty men, men of reknown, and that it will happen AGAIN after it first happened on Adam's world and it DID, when it happened AGAIN on our Planet.

Before we make any claims we need to make sure they are consistent with the Scriptures. If the Scriptures don't address the subject, by what authority can we say definitively one way or another?

Amen. The sons of God were the people whose fossilized bones we find today. They were like animals, innocent, because they didn't have enough intelligence to even grow their own food. They were a Special Creation designed to have the ability to produce children with Adam's descendants.

Tomorrow, when we travel into Space, everywhere we find liquid water, we will find life and people who look exactly like us, but whose origin was in the water some 3.7 Billion years ago. Humans were formed of the dust of the ground on the THIRD Day, long BEFORE ANY other living creature. Gen. 2:4-7 The THIRD Day was the SAME Day as the Big Bang of our Cosmos.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Split Rock]

Nor does it make it false. Would intelligent, well educated people continue to insist an event happened when they could avoid torture and execution by simply recanting? The early witnesses for the church absolutely believed the things they saw, and went to their graves convinced it was true. Your disbelieve accounts for nothing in comparison.

Was there belief any greater than that of the 911 terrorists?

 

[Theodor1]

They now mock and attack Christian beliefs openly and fervently on the Internet;

They mock and attack Christians, but they do not know what Christians believe, so they can not attack their beliefs. They think they know, but they really don't. They spend to much time learning about Christianity from people that know nothing at all about it. They simply can not "rightly divide[FONT=arial, sans-serif] the [/FONT]word of truth".

 

[Theodor1]

Tomorrow, when we travel into Space, everywhere we find liquid water, we will find life and people who look exactly like us,

Do you mean exactly like we would look if we had not fallen into sin and always walked with God?

 

[biggles53]

They mock and attack Christians, but they do not know what Christians believe, so they can not attack their beliefs. They think they know, but they really don't. They spend to much time learning about Christianity from people that know nothing at all about it. They simply can not "rightly divide[FONT=arial, sans-serif] the [/FONT]word of truth".

Christians don't know what they believe......evidence the 30,000 different variants, ALL claiming to know the 'Truth'...!

 

[AV1611VET]

Christians don't know what they believe......evidence the 30,000 different variants, ALL claiming to know the 'Truth'...!

But we all believe:

IN THE BEGINNING, GOD

So if you want to use variety to pwn Christianity, we'll use agreement to pwn Atheism.

How's that?