Will Creation Science Ever Be Accepted By Mainstream Scientists?

[Michael]

By the way, your response really didn't directly address his question.

 

[MikeEnders]

Actually the flaw in the reasoning comes from your attempt to compare a religious text to a history textbook that has no religious intent to start with.

No the flaw is in your logic that because something is a religious text you can warp it into a metaphor anywhere you see fit and you determine what it means without reference to the Hebrew or Greek dictionary. Further if you can read Kings and chronicles and not see that it is being historical something must be seriously wrong with your glasses

It's a tad ironic from my perspective that you're basically ignoring the fact that Jesus himself used metaphors in his own teachings.

Stop making up things to suit yourself. Despite your claims to the contrary you are building up quite a history of making up false claims. I already responded to that before you hit the post button so how could I be ignoring anything? go read it

I simply don't share your viewpoint that every word in the Bible must be interpreted literally. I don't mind if you want to try to use the Bible as a reference, but I'm not personally obligated to limit myself to that single document when it comes to physics and science.

We have agreed we don't share a viewpoint. You could have saved your fingers typing. My point is still the same. we equally are free to hold the viewpoint that rather than an example, as you presented yourself in my discussion with others, of how Darwinism has kept your faith you Can be seen as a pretty good example of how it corrupts faith. You seem to think you are free to hold a position but need your permission of whether you mind to hold ours

We might all agree that the sun shines, but I couldn't say so with complete certainty.

Yeah well I will pass on the gibberish that we cant know for certain that on a clear day the sun isn't really shining

I'm simply noting that Christianity enjoys a wide range of beliefs, not all of which have much to do with the teachings of Jesus, or the text that is found in the Bible.

and I am simply noting that Christianity relates to what the first century people who founded says it is not what you want it tobe. I reject your redefining Christianity to suit yourself and see it no different than the loss of faith you are trying to convince me you haven't had

True, and I've made my choice. I see no 'scientific' evidence to support YEC, so I've made a personal choice related to that topic.

Then maintain some personal internal consistency. If one opinion of scripture is the same as all opinions of scripture then use the same logic with evolution and leave the people alone that don;t agree with your opinion since by your standard biblical logic all opinions are equally valid

In other words you're quite comfortable to denounce the Catholic Pope and then create your own 'religion', just like everyone else that doesn't happen to be Catholic.

In other words you don't know how to read or are yet again back to your strawman modus operandi. If I accept first century documents that define Christianity at the near beginning how am I making up my own religion because I dn;t accept your premise that a guy writing a thousand plus years later can change what they wrote. Sorry but you make no sense whatsoever. thats just totally incoherent

But we're discussing Christianity, and whether or not Christians are *required* to interpret every passage of the Bible "literally". We aren't discussing Buddhism or some other unrelated topic. How about sticking to the topic?

How about following your own logic. You appealed to what Christianity means personally to you as the most important and I pointed out logically and rationally a fact - ANy religious adherent of any religion can make the same claim of that. IF you cant grasp a point as being on topic don't even dream you are going to tell me I can't make it.

Since the Catholic Church is the earliest denomination

Since thats not even remotely factual I need not deal with the rationality or lack thereof that comes from it. The earliest denomination was the first century church somewhere in the AD 30s. There is no mention of a Roma catholic church in any of their documents and wasn't fr hundreds of years. They were based in jerusalem not rome never mention the word Pope, never saw mary as an intercessor for themselves , never had patron saints, never used the rosary, saw rome as the enemy and had twelve apostles not one. Your continued claim that I should accept your pope as an authority or be making up my own religion is sometihing I and every protestant on the planet will just laugh at because it is entirely laughable as an argument

Either address the scientific aspect, or don't, but stop making the thread "personal'.

You mean like when you told me how my personal take on Genesis contradicted everything in science as if you knew what my personal take is - I noticed you skirted answering that (as I suspected you might) so again if you are at all being honest when you implied you knew my take on Genesis one please tell tell me WITH DETAILS what my position is and the science that it flies in the face EVERYWHERE ON.

Still waiting...and don't think for a moment I will drop the requirement for an answer that meets the requirement of that question. Its time you actually backed up one of your personal strawmen claims

Your post is now going off the rails. I simply noted that there isn't any scientific evidence to support YEC, and therefore YEC isn't likely to be accepted by 'scientists'.

Good night man this is getting a bit disgusting - what you said to me is right here and you did NOT say YEC you specified my position

why does your literal interpretation fly in the face of all scientific evidence?

SO again what is my literal interpretation and how does it fly in the face of ALL scientific evidence. You seem to know it goes against all scientific evidence so you must be fully informed of it and have sufficient details. Claiming that becaue I say you should back up a claim you made against my position I am off the rails is just sad and ridiculous

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Actually that debate has been going on since at least the time of Martin Luther, and in fact the book of Acts documents some debate even among the earliest followers of Christ. It's hardly "new" news.

Exactly; I was being a little facetious because those horse bones are past flogging

 

[MikeEnders]

Actually that debate has been going on since at least the time of Martin Luther, and in fact the book of Acts documents some debate even among the earliest followers of Christ. It's hardly "new" news.

Stop trying to distort the Bible to fit into your premise. There is one discussion in the book of acts in regard to Gentiles in the church and it was settled the same day. the idea there was ongoing debate is a total farce

 

[Michael]

Stop trying to distort the Bible to fit into your premise. There is one discussion in the book of acts in regard to Gentiles in the church and it was settled the same day. the idea there was ongoing debate is a total farce

It may have been settled in a day, but the whole conversation wouldn't even have been necessary if there wasn't a debate about it to begin with.

FYI, it's never been my intent to 'distort' anything, and I see no reason for you to assume anything of the sort. Even Christ himself used metaphors in his teachings unless you think he was an actual loaf of bread.

 

[Michael]

Exactly; I was being a little facetious because those horse bones are past flogging

True. Then again atheists can't seem to all agree on "strong" atheism, even though some of them are strong atheists, so I wouldn't try to ride that lame horse too long.

 

[MikeEnders]

Michael - I will respond to you this one last time since you pointed out something I needed to see. You are right that he said I did not trust science not that I hated it. I stand corrected on that. However, your accusation of strawman logical fallacy shows you need to study logical fallacies, particularly that one, seriously.

Quite right. Michael is obviously unaware of what a strawman argument is (or he would not employ it as often as he does) so I would ignore his accusation as uninformed. A strawman argument embodies assuming a position is being taken that in fact is not being taken in order to defeat the premise. It is NOT merely the different use of one word. IF someone says you do not trust science it is reasonable and rational to conclude that you would not be emotionally disposed to something you did not trust. Therefore the idea that you would be emotionally averse or hate the thing you do not trust is not really that way out there and no matter what someone claims is most definitely NOT a strawman fallacy.

 

[Michael]

No the flaw is in your logic that because something is a religious text you can warp it into a metaphor anywhere you see fit and you determine what it means without reference to the Hebrew or Greek dictionary.

Unless I'm obligated to *assume* that God is an actual rock and that Christ was actually made of bread, there's no way that you can deny the use of metaphors in the Bible. Any suggestion to the contrary requires to you to explain how God is literally a rock and Jesus is literally bread.

Further if you can read Kings and chronicles and not see that it is being historical something must be seriously wrong with your glasses

I don't doubt that *some* of the Bible includes historical facts. I simply doubt that *everything* in the Bible is necessarily meant to be interpreted literally, and I note the fact that even Jesus used metaphors which are recorded in the Bible.

Stop making up things to suit yourself. Despite your claims to the contrary you are building up quite a history of making up false claims. I already responded to that before you hit the post button so how could I be ignoring anything? go read it

So where did you explain how God is literal rock and Christ is literal loaf of bread? Link please.

We have agreed we don't share a viewpoint. You could have saved your fingers typing. My point is still the same. we equally are free to hold the viewpoint that rather than an example, as you presented yourself in my discussion with others, of how Darwinism has kept your faith you Can be seen as a pretty good example of how it corrupts faith. You seem to think you are free to hold a position but need your permission of whether you mind to hold ours

Huh? You're welcome to hold whatever viewpoint you wish, including the viewpoint that God is literally a rock, or that Christ is literally bread if you like. I simply choose to interpret various passages as *metaphors*, mostly because it's highly likely that they *were* actually just metaphors.

When "faith" does come into direct conflict with "science", there's definitely a danger of one's "faith" being undermined by physics. If there is no such conflict, there is no such danger. Period.

Yeah well I will pass on the gibberish that we cant know for certain that on a clear day the sun isn't really shining

Whatever floats your boat....

and I am simply noting that Christianity relates to what the first century people who founded says it is not what you want it tobe.

And yet the oldest Church, and the leader of the Church don't share your views on EV or the age of the Earth. Why is that?

I reject your redefining Christianity to suit yourself and see it no different than the loss of faith you are trying to convince me you haven't had

Likewise I reject your redefining of Christianity to suit *yourself*, and I embrace the Pope's interpretation on these same issues. My faith has always been in a living Christ, not a literal interpretation of an inanimate object. I never had any such "faith" in literal interpretations of the Bible, anymore than I ever had faith that Jesus is made of bread.

Then maintain some personal internal consistency.

I do. I interpret lots of passages as metaphors, and my beliefs are consistent with the Catholic and Lutheran faiths. Whatever sect you happen to agree with came *after* both of those Churches so you might as well get off your high horse.

If one opinion of scripture is the same as all opinions of scripture then use the same logic with evolution and leave the people alone that don;t agree with your opinion since by your standard biblical logic all opinions are equally valid

That's clearly a strawman argument since I never claimed that all opinions are equally valid. Do you find it ethical to stick words in my mouth that I never actually uttered?

In other words you don't know how to read or are yet again back to your strawman modus operandi.

Irony overload.

If I accept first century documents that define Christianity at the near beginning how am I making up my own religion because I dn;t accept your premise that a guy writing a thousand plus years later can change what they wrote. Sorry but you make no sense whatsoever. thats just totally incoherent

When you can explain how God is a literal rock and Christ is a literal loaf of bread, then you can lecture me about the merits of a literal translation. Until then I'll have to go with the largest and oldest single Church in Christianity as the to the value of accepting the use of metaphors in the Bible.

How about following your own logic. You appealed to what Christianity means personally to you as the most important and I pointed out logically and rationally a fact - ANy religious adherent of any religion can make the same claim of that. IF you cant grasp a point as being on topic don't even dream you are going to tell me I can't make it.

Since there are *multiple* Christian sects, you really don't have a logical or valid argument.

Since thats not even remotely factual I need not deal with the rationality or lack thereof that comes from it. The earliest denomination was the first century church somewhere in the AD 30s. There is no mention of a Roma catholic church in any of their documents and wasn't fr hundreds of years. They were based in jerusalem not rome never mention the word Pope,never saw mary as an intercessor for themselves , never had patron saints, never used the rosary, saw rome as the enemy and had twelve apostles not one. Your continued claim that I should accept your pope as an authority or be making up my own religion is sometihing I and every protestant on the planet will just laugh at because it is entirely laughable as an argument

Ditto for you claim that everything written in the Bible must be interpreted literally, otherwise I'm obligated to believe that God is a literal rock, and Jesus is literal bread. You've never addressed either point "literally', so why should I believe you're even being consistent yourself, while you accuse me of inconsistency?

You mean like when you told me how my personal take on Genesis contradicted everything in science as if you knew what my personal take is -

Actually the use of the term "you" was meant to be generic in that singe sentence, and you're right I really don't know what your personal view are. Then again, your need to stuff a literal translation down my throat does suggest you refuse to embrace evolutionary theory. Am I wrong about that, yes or no?

I noticed you skirted answering that (as I suspected you might) so again if you are at all being honest when you implied you knew my take on Genesis one please tell tell me WITH DETAILS what my position is and the science that it flies in the face EVERYWHERE ON.

Ok, if it bothers you, I should have said YEC flies in the face of all scientific evidence and I shouldn't have *assumed* you were a YEC. Are you? Yes or no? How old is the Earth in your opinion, and is EV theory valid or not in your opinion?

 

[MikeEnders]

It may have been settled in a day, but the whole conversation wouldn't even have been necessary if there wasn't a debate about it to begin with.

Go read your post. You put it into the context of an ongoing debate. If you didn't know acts goes on for many years after with no such debate. This was the first time gentiles were entering the church why wouldn't there be discussion. If yu actually read the text you would see once all the details were put out there was not even much of a debate leadership was in total agreement. it bears no resemblance to any ongoing debate you were trying to attach it to

FYI, it's never been my intent to 'distort' anything, and I see no reason for you to assume anything of the sort. Even Christ himself used metaphors in his teachings unless you think he was an actual loaf of bread.

Sure and in all such cases as I answered you long ago we have evidence within the context that he was using it when he used it. so that actually pretty much destroys your premise. If you followed the biblical pattern then you would allow the context to invoke where the passage is is using analogical terms not claim you can use them anywhere you see fit. its just a totally silly argument to make that because I might say in one place "gee I have been waiting in this line forever"
that when I say elsewhere I made this chair in day" it means I am being metaphorical. You wouldn't do that nonsense with anything but the Bible

 

[Michael]

Go read your post. You put it into the context of an ongoing debate. If you didn't know acts goes on for many years after with no such debate.

So how long exactly did it go on *before* it was finally settled? Are you really going to try to claim that all early Christians thought in lockstep, and if so, what's your evidence to support that claim? There wasn't even a "single text" that defined early Christian belief!

This was the first time gentiles were entering the church why wouldn't there be discussion. If yu actually read the text you would see once all the details were put out there was not even much of a debate leadership was in total agreement. it bears no resemblance to any ongoing debate you were trying to attach it to

Apparently you simply don't have any sense of humor in debate and you like to take everything way too literally. So what's your excuse for all the debate since Martin Luther?

Sure and in all such cases as I answered you long ago we have evidence within the context that he was using it when he used it. so that actually pretty much destroys your premise.

It actually destroys your premise because it demonstrates conclusively that the Bible *does* include content and text that is *intended* to be interpreted metaphorically so you really have no right to condemn me for doing just that.

If you followed the biblical pattern then you would allow the context to invoke where the passage is is using analogical terms not claim you can use them anywhere you see fit.

I do. I know for a fact that none of the Biblical authors was around to see the Earth being formed, so I don't "assume' it's a literal description of the event. Ditto for lots of the text in Genesis.

its just a totally silly argument to make that because I might say in one place "gee I have been waiting in this line forever"
that when I say elsewhere I made this chair in day" it means I am being metaphorical. You wouldn't do that nonsense with anything but the Bible

Translation: Sometimes even you resort to a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible so you can't actually justify your literal interpretation of Genesis, and *definitely* not via science.

 

[Michael]

FYI, it's rather amusing that you reject the Pope as an authority of the Church, and yet without a final arbitrator, there really isn't any effective way to resolve theological difference as easily as it was done in the book of Acts, and as witnessed by all the various sects of Christianity that exist today.

 

[Michael]

It should also be noted that for more than a thousand years, the Catholic Church was the *only* recognized Church and for more than a thousand years, the Pope was the head of the Church. James was considered the head of the church in Jerusalem, and Peter was considered to the first 'Pope' after the death of James. In short the Christian Church has *always* had a 'head', starting with Christ, passing to James, and then to Peter.

 

[MikeEnders]

Unless I'm obligated to *assume* that God is an actual rock and that Christ was actually made of bread, there's no way that you can deny the use of metaphors in the Bible. Any suggestion to the contrary requires to you to explain how God is literally a rock and Jesus is literally bread.

Now see? thats a strawman. go look it up and learn before you try to lecture on it again. Even though I am on record saying the use if metaphors is in the Bible but the passage indicates to us when it is being used you are totally fabricating to suit your argument that my position is that there is no metaphor at all. Take a bow for desperate misrepresentation yet again

So where did you explain how God is literal rock and Christ is literal loaf of bread?

Again strawman. you are like a walking talking misrepresentation machine. The context tells us when an analogy is being used. saying that we can invoke a metaphor anywhere in the Bible even when there are not those cues is like saying because you say the sun rises sometimes I can take your claiming you are a christian as a metaphor for womething else

And yet the oldest Church

Yawn... repeating something as fact makes it no less the fabrication it was the first time

That's clearly a strawman argument since I never claimed that all opinions are equally valid. Do you find it ethical to stick words in my mouth that I never actually uttered?

You of all people will not be lecturing me on the ethics of creating strawmen and no it not a strawman. Yu are still as clear as mud on what a strawman is and thats not one. You have reasoned that the presence of so many opinions on the bible means that it is left to personal opinion as to which one to choose. Using the same logic applied to another subject it stands t reason that a multiplicity of opinions would leave that up to personal opinion as well. howeer in somewhat hypocritical form you presume to lecture some people here who have a different opinion on Evolution that theres is wrong and not subject to your logic that multiplicity of opinions should lead to uncertainty to make the claim of right or wrong

Ok, if it bothers you, I should have said YEC flies in the face of all scientific evidence and I shouldn't have *assumed* you were a YEC. Are you? Yes or no? How old is the Earth in your opinion, and is EV theory valid or not in your opinion?

If it bothers me? So it doesn't bother you that you misrepresented. NO until you can have the moral fiber to admit and apologize for your false claim of knowing my position I'l await your answer to my question of what my position is. If yu cant muster the character to flat out admit your claim was wrong to misrepresent you knew what it was unless it bothers me then youare not worth having a further conversation with. Frankly if you can't admit to misrepresenting no one need bother with your posts at all.

Want a preview of how wrong you are about me being a strict YEC?? read the thread I already told you I have no problem with an old earth. tsk tsk. you should be embarrassed at yourself

 

[MikeEnders]

It should also be noted that for more than a thousand years, the Catholic Church was the *only* recognized Church and for more than a thousand years, the Pope was the head of the Church. James was considered the head of the church in Jerusalem, and Peter was considered to the first 'Pope' after the death of James. In short the Christian Church has *always* had a 'head', starting with Christ, passing to James, and then to Peter.

its as if poor Mike never met a protestant before and doesn't know that none of the millions of Protestants buys his claims as even scriptural. TO be this insulated from the real world is an impressive display of the metaphorical life of an Ostrich

 

[Michael]

Now see? thats a strawman. go look it up and learn before you try to lecture on it again. Even though I am on record saying the use if metaphors is in the Bible but the passage indicates to us when it is being used you are totally fabricating to suit your argument that my position is that there is no metaphor at all. Take a bow for desperate misrepresentation yet again

Meh. You didn't even come clean till later in the post, and I hadn't read that far yet, so it wasn't actually an intended strawman. What's amusing now however is that you're forced to admit that you too are doing exactly the same thing I'm doing, namely interpreting some passages literally and some as metaphors, so your complaints about my doing the same thing that you're doing is pure hypocrisy on your part. You're just mad because I choose to interpret parts of Genesis as metaphors and you don't. Then again my beliefs are perfectly congruent with science and the Catholic Church, the single largest sect of 'Christianity'. Can you make that same claim? Yes? No?

Again strawman. you are like a walking talking misrepresentation machine. The context tells us when an analogy is being used. saying that we can invoke a metaphor anywhere in the Bible even when there are not those cues is like saying because you say the sun rises sometimes I can take your claiming you are a christian as a metaphor for womething else

There are those 'cues' in Genesis since not a single author of Genesis could possibly have witnessed the creation event, and it says *nothing* about when that may have occurred. You're burying yourself IMO.

 

[Michael]

its as if poor Mike never met a protestant before and doesn't know that none of the millions of Protestants buys his claims as even scriptural. TO be this insulated from the real world is an impressive display of the metaphorical life of an Ostrich

Psst: I was raised in the Lutheran Church. It just so happens that my beliefs are also congruent with the single largest sect in Christianity, as well as segments of the Lutheran church. Apparently you've never noticed that not all Protestant sects think alike or interpret the Bible exactly the same.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Makes me wonder if Kent Hovind is just a con-man who doesn't believe what he says.

He is not a con-man. He has a lot of zeal for God. He is just not very accurate in what he believes in regard to science.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If you accept all of that, is it so hard for you to accept that God could create the world in 6 days? If you believe in God, then you should acknowledge his power, knowledge, and mercy.

I have no problem with a literal 6 days. God gives us more then just the Bible. He has left us things like fossils and geological layers in the earth that we can study and learn from. So when we study the natural record that God gives us then we need to ask what is He trying to show us and what does He want us to learn from this.

In order to believe in evolution, then you must believe that there was DEATH before sin, which is impossible as there was no such thing until after Adam and Eve betrayed God.

Adam and Eve were to live forever. We are told at the resurrection when we receive our glorified body that we shall live for ever and ever. There are "natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed". I believe there will be animals in Heaven but it is for us that they find there way into eternity. Apart from us they would perish and be destroyed. At least most Christians believe that they will see there departed pets when they get to Heaven.

 

[Michael]

He is not a con-man. He has a lot of zeal for God. He is just not very accurate in what he believes in regard to science.

I tend to agree. Most YEC are very adamant and sincere about their beliefs which is why it's rare to see them change their views. That doesn't make them right however and frankly some of his claims are simply scientifically irrational.

 

[lesliedellow]

lesliedellow - I'm sorry that you apparently did not understand the point that the Nobel Prize winning scientist was making. He was referring to the theory of abiogenesis.

I understand the point he was trying to make; it is just a shame that he tried to make it by citing a completely irrelevant discovery made by Louis Pasteur.