Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh please guy.Gold Dragon said:Fortunately science does not do this since most significant scientific advances suggested ideas that completely didn't fit with how the scientific community of that time viewed things. Many scientists risked ridicule and losing their reputation for presenting evidence that was contrary to popular scientific belief. But their perseverance paid off as continued investigation into the evidence justified them. The same was true of Darwin.
The hypothetical isn't about who is right and who is wrong. It is about our attitudes when we discover we are wrong.YahwehLove said:Nice try.
But as I said this is nothing more that a God/rock scenario that has no purpose but to defeat ones faith in what God said.
Im not buying it.
If yoiu want my attention with this type of sillyness, then by all means make a time machine, go back and bring me some proof.
Every shred of astronomical evidence is compared to the heliocentric model to see how it fits. Are you suggesting astronomers should still use geocentric models when interpreting astronomical data?YahwehLove said:Oh please guy.
Every shred of evidence they find is compared to old earth/TE to see how it fits.
Only if they find something that cannot possible fit are they going to risk anything.
We're not discussing 300 years ago, we're talking TODAY.
Today TE rules the minds of scientists.
I see. as usual the rules change when needed.Karl - Liberal Backslider said:Polystrate trees are what one expects when trees are engulfed in mud during local flood events, or where petrified forests are exposed and then silt layers build up around them.
come now gent. I can dig up pictures that I have here somewhere.Now, if you can show me a polystrate tree where the strata through which it cuts are actually many millions of years different in age, perhaps you have an argument.
Well, I have a standard response to this type of thing, but it is founded in my previous beliefs that God just changed everything magically at the fall.Now. Let's see if retro-viral insertions can get past your Morton's Demon.
We're not discussing 300 years ago, we're talking TODAY.Gold Dragon said:Every shred of astronomical evidence is compared to the heliocentric model to see how it fits. Are you suggesting astronomers still use geocentric models when interpreting astronomical data?
Do you suggest that scientists ignore the evidence of an old earth in their interpretation? I'm sure they would if serious scientific evidence of a young earth existed. Unfortunately it does not. The bible is evidence but not scientific evidence. (again, unscientific does not mean wrong)
Yes. A scientist today interpreting fossil evidence using the assumption of an young earth is like a scientist today interpreting astronomical evidence using the assumption of a geocentric model.YahwehLove said:We're not discussing 300 years ago, we're talking TODAY.
I agree 100% see how close we really are?YahwehLove said:I am begining to think that animals were never intended to live forever as YEC seems to generally teach.
And Im beginning to think, based on Genesis 3, that neither was Adams body eternal but that he would have been perpetuated only by the Tree of Life. The Tree being a foreshadow of Christ, in my opinion, this would make perfect sense, again, in my opinion.
YahwehLove said:Nice try.
But as I said this is nothing more that a God/rock scenario that has no purpose but to defeat ones faith in what God said.
Im not buying it.
If yoiu want my attention with this type of sillyness, then by all means make a time machine, go back and bring me some proof.
Gold Dragon said:The hypothetical isn't about who is right and who is wrong. It is about our attitudes when we discover we are wrong.
If the time machine showed that the YEC way was right, I would have no problem admitting that I was wrong.
Although scripture doesn't say that.YahwehLove said:Well, I have a standard response to this type of thing, but it is founded in my previous beliefs that God just changed everything magically at the fall.
It doesnt say that, youre right.versastyle said:Although scripture doesn't say that.
you forget I dont have to refute anything.And refuting these scientific conclusions with this kind of statement is pointless.
Now when I start saying things that offend you, keep in mind what your doing right here.All it does it say "hey you are right, you are observing God's works and it is a very scientific conclusion, however, you are still making the wrong conclusion, because the bible says so, na na nay nay boo boo".
It doesnt have to be effective.Do you honestly feel this type of response is effective?
Karl.Now. Let's see if retro-viral insertions can get past your Morton's Demon.
Disrespectful? I'm making an observation. What I posted was a reflection of how I view your attitude on the subject. Unfortunately, by yout response, I see that you agree with my interpretation and just have a problem with me calling you out on it.YahwehLove said:Now when I start saying things that offend you, keep in mind what your doing right here.
Either this is going be respectful both ways or it will be disrespectful both ways
The choice is yours.
So we agree that you aren't adding anything to discussion?It doesnt have to be effective.
The text does nothing. It is a book of words, which require years of scientific knowledge to combine and understand. YOU, however are the one teaching 6 day creation.It is stating a FACT that the text TEACHES 6 days of creation.
You have yet to provide a single thing with which to ''call me out''versastyle said:Disrespectful? I'm making an observation. What I posted was a reflection of how I view your attitude on the subject. Unfortunately, by yout response, I see that you agree with my interpretation and just have a problem with me calling you out on it.
You are?So we agree that you aren't adding anything to discussion?
wow. I wonder what they all did before your wonderful science told them that the bible was wrong?The text does nothing. It is a book of words, which require years of scientific knowledge to combine and understand. YOU, however are the one teaching 6 day creation.
For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it.
(Exo 20:11)
HmmIf I never read Genesis, conduct scientific research, and I conclude the Earth is millions of years old, although it is not, am I the one who is as at fault? No. Of course not. You do know that a majority of the world can't even read the bible right? Seems kind of odd to me that the only way to learn about God and His ways requires a secular eduction.
You said effective conversation isn't necessary. I didn't say that. This leads me to believe that you aren't here to discuss points of view, but just to say the same five words.YahwehLove said:You are?
They concluded the stars were embedded in the firmament and that the Earth was flat.wow. I wonder what they all did before your wonderful science told them that the bible was wrong?
Through prayer and guidance, definitely not based in a dogmatic approach to written words.An education not possible at ealier points in time.
I wonder how on earth Enoch knew Gods truth by your standards.
Now PROVE to me that ALL men of God believed that and not just the few.versastyle said:They concluded the stars were embedded in the firmament and that the Earth was flat.
Here we go.Through prayer and guidance, definitely not based in a dogmatic approach to written words.
Exactly. Science had to educate them.YahwehLove said:Now PROVE to me that ALL men of God believed that and not just the few.
That some parts of the ''church'' called men heretics for rejecting this type of teaching does NOT mean all bought into it.
AND the bible does NOT teach either clearly.
He is the authority on the subject. Its too bad He requires you have an education to see it.It is men reading too much INTO the text.
Ive seen the passges and Ive seen the drawings.
they read WAY too much into the text, plain and simple
Funny tho, a 6 day creation doesnt need a thing added or any reading between the lines.
God was there, He made it all and Im sure that HE is the authority on the matter.
You asked how people learn without any education. THEY COULDN'T READ, SO WHAT ELSE COULD THEY DO?Here we go.
I was just corrected for this same junk that implies that Im not praying but being dogmatic.
Heres your chance to show you are being fair to all friend.
Right.versastyle said:Exactly. Science had to educate them.
Like this you mean?He is the authority on the subject. Its too bad He requires you have an education to see it.
Its not wisdom to accept a theory that causes one to dismiss Gods word when not a single person on the planet will say absolultely that that thoery is foolproof.For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the understanding of the prudent I will annul."
(1Co 1:19)
you words made implications.You asked how people learn without any education. THEY COULDN'T READ, SO WHAT ELSE COULD THEY DO?
I agree.YahwehLove said:Right.
Far be it for God to have the ability to say ''I did it in 6 days'' and to teach that to man and then have that be the truth.
Many times.Lets see.
How many times has science be WRONG.
So?One of Hawkings latest retractions comes to mind.
Fairly major one too as I recall.
That verse leads me to believe that all this education and scientific study we have that helps us read the bible is leading us to stupidity. According to scripture it would be better that we couldn't read.Like this you mean?
Yeah all those poor, blind and dumb people who couldn't read were robbed as well.All those poor uneducated saps down thru the years robbed of Gods truth simply because Darwin hadnt arrived on the scene yet.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?