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

[keith99]

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?

We can, but only so far. Dating wood would be Carbon 14 dating. It is based on how much carbon 14 there is in the wood, half of it decays every 5370 years.

This means the farther back you go the less there is. There was not all that high a percentage to start with. Pretty quickly there is not enough left to make an accurate calculation.

One can go back farther than any marked grave, but not back to the time of dinosaurs.

 

[freezerman2000]

The Bible was intended as an history as well.

I am not a scientist.

History and science are two completely different subjects.

The Bible tells me that He did it..Science tells me the processes involved.

 

[freezerman2000]

The Bible was intended as an history as well.

I am not a scientist.

So that means that you can't tell us your version of what happened..
All you had to do was to tell us so.

 

[BrianJK]

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?

Your faith then is in a rate of decay (or whatever is used in the dating system in question) that is constant and always predictable.

 

[lasthero]

We can, but only so far. Dating wood would be Carbon 14 dating. It is based on how much carbon 14 there is in the wood, half of it decays every 5370 years.

This means the farther back you go the less there is. There was not all that high a percentage to start with. Pretty quickly there is not enough left to make an accurate calculation.

One can go back farther than any marked grave, but not back to the time of dinosaurs.

I know. Even with that, though, we could get dates that exceed 6,000 years. My point is simply - if we know the dating technique works on something with marked age, why can't we say it works on something without marked age? If I put a 20 pound weight on a scale and the scale says it weighs 20 pounds, why can't I trust the scale to measure my own weight?

 

[Split Rock]

The Word of God says nothing about those things.

Yet you have plenty of "faith" in such "facts" and "evidence," until it conflicts with your fallible interpretation of scripture. Then the "facts and "evidence" are wrong, instead of your fallible interpretation of scripture.

 

[lasthero]

Your faith then is in a rate of decay (or whatever is used in the dating system in question) that is constant and always predictable.

It's not just that, though - there are other dating techniques that use different methods and give the same results.

And why wouldn't the rate of decay be constant? For what reason would it change?

 

[Split Rock]

Your faith then is in a rate of decay (or whatever is used in the dating system in question) that is constant and always predictable.

That's because this is the conclusion the "facts" and "evidence" infer. Not because we have "faith" in it.

 

[BrianJK]

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

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.[/QUOTE]

You claim that; not me. Don't put words in my mouth.
Your interpretation of what you see says that, not the earth.
Old earth was never known, only believed.

 

[KWCrazy]

You are breaking one of the commandments by turning the Bible into an object of worship.

What Commandments?

The Ten Commandments came from God. You don't believe He exists, so how could you believe in His commandments? If the commandments don't exist, how can you accuse anyone of violating them?

You atheists sure have strange opinions of the God you claim doesn't exist.

 

[OllieFranz]

The Bible is the direct Word of God. It is 100% true.

On what do you base this statement? On the word of men? Or did God reveal it to you personally in a vision. Certainly not from the Bible. It makes no such claim.

I have heard many trying to claim that 1 Timothy 3:16 makes that claim. But look at it more carefully. It does not claim that God wrote it, merely that His inspiration is the reason it was written

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:​

It does not claim that God wrote it, merely that His inspiration is the reason it was written. Nor does it claim to be inerrant ("100% true"), it merely claims to be profitable. It does not claim authority over every aspect of life and knowledge, but only over doctrine and instruction in righteousness, and in those areas it is profitable for the purposes of correction and reproof. Other passages are even less bold in their claims.

As far as being "the word of God," The Bible tells us that Jesus is the Word of God, not the Scriptures. There are only two instances in the entire Bible where what is written was written by the Hand of God: the tablets at Sinai, and the writing on the wall in Daniel.

 

[OllieFranz]

One simple reason is that Jesus will not be able to save u on ur last day.

"Not able to?" I'm sorry that you do not believe that Jesus is God Omnipotent.

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.​

 

[Loudmouth]

Your faith then is in a rate of decay . . .

The rate of decay is directly measured. It is not a matter of faith.

(or whatever is used in the dating system in question) that is constant and always predictable.

We observe that it is always constant and predictable. This is a fact. We can see radioactive decay in distant supernovae that are hundreds of thousands of lightyears away, and the decay of those isotopes is the same as it is here on Earth hundreds of thousands of years later. The fundamental forces that drive decay do not change anywhere in the universe.

So why do you have to run away from these facts in order to prop up your faith? That is the real question.

 

[Loudmouth]

Old earth was never known, only believed.

It's based on facts.

 

[BrianJK]

On what do you base this statement? On the word of men? Or did God reveal it to you personally in a vision. Certainly not from the Bible. It makes no such claim.

I have heard many trying to claim that 1 Timothy 3:16 makes that claim. But look at it more carefully. It does not claim that God wrote it, merely that His inspiration is the reason it was written

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It does not claim that God wrote it, merely that His inspiration is the reason it was written. Nor does it claim to be inerrant ("100% true"), it merely claims to be profitable. It does not claim authority over every aspect of life and knowledge, but only over doctrine and instruction in righteousness, and in those areas it is profitable for the purposes of correction and reproof. Other passages are even less bold in their claims.

As far as being "the word of God," The Bible tells us that Jesus is the Word of God, not the Scriptures. There are only two instances in the entire Bible where what is written was written by the Hand of God: the tablets at Sinai, and the writing on the wall in Daniel.

If you personally require His very hand for the Bible to be true, that is only you. He inspired every word.

 

[BrianJK]

So that means that you can't tell us your version of what happened..
All you had to do was to tell us so.

I certainly can, and will if you would like. If you insist on your caveat, however, you should provide your history using no science whatsoever, in the interest of fairness

 

[BrianJK]

The rate of decay is directly measured. It is not a matter of faith.

We observe that it is always constant and predictable. This is a fact. We can see radioactive decay in distant supernovae that are hundreds of thousands of lightyears away, and the decay of those isotopes is the same as it is here on Earth hundreds of thousands of years later. The fundamental forces that drive decay do not change anywhere in the universe.

So why do you have to run away from these facts in order to prop up your faith? That is the real question.

This is only true if you accept your "hundreds of thousands of years" theory.

Your belief is all faith. You just don't want to see it.

 

[BrianJK]

It's based on facts.

Only factual based on your faith

 

[lasthero]

This is only true if you accept your "hundreds of thousands of years" theory.

Your belief is all faith. You just don't want to see it.

If something is wrong with the way we measure decay rates, then why do methods of dating that don't use decay rates return the same results? How does that make any sense?

If you asked a bunch of people with no expertise to come up with separate ways of measuring weight, you would expect them to all mess it up, sure - but you wouldn't expect them to mess it up in such a way that they all get the same wrong answer. That's improbable.

 

[Split Rock]

This is only true if you accept your "hundreds of thousands of years" theory.

Your belief is all faith. You just don't want to see it.

It certainly is common practice nowadays for creationists to denigrate the word "faith" like this. You are all so very desperate to gain somekind of parity with science, even though faith and science are like apples and oranges. Look how you use the word "faith" almost like an insult. Its an accusation... "Your belief is faith!... take that evo!" Then you guys always claim we have as much faith, if not more (I believe you said it was the same) than you guys do. Wow. I guess your faith is pretty weak, then... isn't it? Afterall, I will gladly give up both common descent and deep time if they are ever falsified by the physical evidence... so my "faith" isn't very strong. Is that why you come here to test your faith against non-believers? Because it is so shaky?