Yecch

[vossler]

First you make this statement:

Then why doesn't it concern you that AIG openly states that by definition no evidence can contradict their conclusions?

That seems to be a bit hypocritical, doesn't it? You have 100% of the AIG scientists that you claim are interested in truth and integrity claiming that they can't be wrong and if a conclusion from evidence contradicts their established religious beliefs then by definition, the evidence must be reinterpreted.

Which clearly leads one to believe that AiG doesn't accept evidence if it contradicts their conclusions. You make no reference to what their conclusions are based upon, which therefore implies it comes straight from their ideas only.

Then when you post their actual statement of faith:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

This statement is entirely different that the one you attributed to them above. AiG has decided that the Bible is their baseline for all knowledge. If some scientific evidence conflicts with God's written Word then they will discount it. Sounds fair and logical to me!

Just as you did here, it seems apparent to me that you and many other evolutionists quickly dismiss or minimize the Bible as our primary source of truth.

Then you go on to say:

This is not science nor should anyone who agrees to this be considered a scientist who is interested in truth and integrity. It is the opposite of science and the scientific method.

You should be concerned if you are looking to AIG 'scientists' for validity or truth. They wouldn't tell you what that is if they found it contradicted their preconceptions, would they?

Interesting! You appear to be saying that if I were a new Christian looking for answers considering our origins you would tell me to disregard Christian scientific organizations such as AiG, ICR and others like them and follow what the secular world's scientists have been telling us.

Then you wonder why YECs are so adamant about what we believe!

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Interesting! You appear to be saying that if I were a new Christian looking for answers considering our origins you would tell me to disregard Christian scientific organizations such as AiG, ICR and others like them and follow what the secular world's scientists have been telling us.

That's certainly exactly what I'd tell you. In the same way I wouldn't tell you to go to the Raelians for information about the possibility of aliens visiting the earth, and I wouldn't tell you to go to the ALF for information about animal testing, I wouldn't tell you to go to what are not scientific organisations but purely religious ones. Once one states an intention to ignore evidence that contradicts the conclusions one has already drawn, one has left the path of science, as defined by common consensus by 99.9999...% of working scientists. Creation science is crank science, whether you like it or not. It has about as many real scientists working in it as any other crank field.

 

[notto]

First you make this statement:
Which clearly leads one to believe that AiG doesn't accept evidence if it contradicts their conclusions. You make no reference to what their conclusions are based upon, which therefore implies it comes straight from their ideas only.

Then when you post their actual statement of faith:
This statement is entirely different that the one you attributed to them above. AiG has decided that the Bible is their baseline for all knowledge. If some scientific evidence conflicts with God's written Word then they will discount it. Sounds fair and logical to me!

Just as you did here, it seems apparent to me that you and many other evolutionists quickly dismiss or minimize the Bible as our primary source of truth.

Then you go on to say:
Interesting! You appear to be saying that if I were a new Christian looking for answers considering our origins you would tell me to disregard Christian scientific organizations such as AiG, ICR and others like them and follow what the secular world's scientists have been telling us.

Then you wonder why YECs are so adamant about what we believe!

I would absolutely steer new Christians away from AIG and ICR if they are interested in learning the truth about the actual creation. I would steer them to scientists who have studied it for hundreds of years and come to scientific conclusions about it instead of a group that discounts all the creation can tell us if it conflicts with their preconceived notion of that creation.

I would steer them toward Christian scientists who are not misguided (or who will not mislead them with poor science and reasoning). Secular science (which is done by Christians as well as others) has done a pretty good job of pointing us to how creation works. AIG and ICR specifically support a belief that has been falsified. It would be silly to steer new Christians to an idea that has already been falsified. I might as well tell them the world is flat.

They are not scientists, by definition, they are not doing science and are not interested in truth (or integrity) as scientists.

 

[Critias]

Interesting statement Notto, since AIG and ICR used the Bible as their True Source for the origins of this world and mankind.

It seems, by what you have said above, that you would steer all new Christians away from the Bible - Genesis 1-3 - and to what the world of scientists have to say instead.

Honestly, it really sounds like don't trust God, trust man. Another low for the Christian forums.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Then when you post their actual statement of faith:
This statement is entirely different that the one you attributed to them above. AiG has decided that the Bible is their baseline for all knowledge. If some scientific evidence conflicts with God's written Word then they will discount it. Sounds fair and logical to me!

They are not using the Bible, they are using a particular interpretation of it and claiming that they cannot be wrong in their interpretation.

Interesting! You appear to be saying that if I were a new Christian looking for answers considering our origins you would tell me to disregard Christian scientific organizations such as AiG, ICR and others like them and follow what the secular world's scientists have been telling us.

Then you wonder why YECs are so adamant about what we believe!

Actually I recommend ASA, a group of Christians that work in the scientific fields that do not blind themselves by choosing only one narrow interpretation of Genesis.

 

[vossler]

I would absolutely steer new Christians away from AIG and ICR if they are interested in learning the truth about the actual creation. I would steer them to scientists who have studied it for hundreds of years and come to scientific conclusions about it instead of a group that discounts all the creation can tell us if it conflicts with their preconceived notion of that creation.

So you've confirmed that you minimize the Bible and it's truths. :o

You hold fallible, prideful, egocentric man in higher regard than God's own written Word. Not that I'm all that shocked, I guess I just expected you to vail it better. There are some things, at this moment, that my flesh would like to say that just aren't appropriate or very Christlike.

However, what I will say is with all the difficulties that Christianity faces, with people like you and Karl as 'friends' who needs enemies.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Interesting statement Notto, since AIG and ICR used the Bible as their True Source for the origins of this world and mankind.

It seems, by what you have said above, that you would steer all new Christians away from the Bible - Genesis 1-3 - and to what the world of scientists have to say instead.

Honestly, it really sounds like don't trust God, trust man. Another low for the Christian forums.

Again we are not questioning Genesis, we are questioning the human interpretation that tells us that it must be literal or false.

To say that we ignore Genesis is false, To say we wish to steer Christians away from the Bible is false.

The truth is I wish to steer Christians away from a false idea that Genesis must be literal or you have to throw the entire religion away. This false idea is more damaging to Christianity then anything science might show.

 

[Critias]

Nobody said you have to take Genesis "literally." If you care about what is written then you will take it how the author intended for it to be taken. If you actually read the Hebrew and study how the Jews understood Genesis you will see that they believed, it shows it is a narrative, historical narrative.

Have you actually studied into Genesis, the linguistics of the original language and how the ancients view it? Or did you make your belief on what modern people say?

 

[notto]

So you've confirmed that you minimize the Bible and it's truths. :o

You hold fallible, prideful, egocentric man in higher regard than God's own written Word. Not that I'm all that shocked, I guess I just expected you to vail it better. There are some things, at this moment, that my flesh would like to say that just aren't appropriate or very Christlike.

However, what I will say is with all the difficulties that Christianity faces, with people like you and Karl as 'friends' who needs enemies.

I hold the integrity of the creation (the work of God) above the fallible and misguided work of those of the like of AIG and ICR who would essentially hold their fallible interpretation of the bible up against what we really find in the creation itself any day.

Denying and ignoring the direct work of God (the creation) and what it tells us and claiming by definition if it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible could not be a more fallible approach. It is poor science and poor theology.

I don't minimize the bible or its truths. Please don't put words in my mouth. I steer clear of groups who claim to be Christian ministries who deceptively and purposely mislead other Christians about what the creation tells us and claim that they hold truth when they can be shown to be holding on to ideas that are false. The falshood of their ideas is evidenced by the very work of God that we can touch and feel.

You hold these fallible, prideful, egocentric man in higher regard than God's own created works.

Telling a Christian something is true (young earth creationism) only to let them find out later that it is false (and falsified) is dangerous. It will only steer them away from the theological truth of the bible.

 

[notto]

Interesting statement Notto, since AIG and ICR used the Bible as their True Source for the origins of this world and mankind.

It seems, by what you have said above, that you would steer all new Christians away from the Bible - Genesis 1-3 - and to what the world of scientists have to say instead.

Honestly, it really sounds like don't trust God, trust man. Another low for the Christian forums.

I trust God and the integrity of his creation more than I trust the often purposely deceitful tactics of groups like AIG and ICR. By their own statements they are not scientific yet claim to be doing science. Their views are falsified by the work of those Christian scientists who actually go out and study the creation. How can the creation be wrong?

 

[Critias]

So Notto, there is not interpretation going on with scientists when looking at the creation?

Creation speaks alone, without human interaction about its origins?

 

[notto]

So Notto, there is not interpretation going on with scientists when looking at the creation?

Creation speaks alone, without human interaction about its origins?

Are you familiar with the scientific method and how consensus is reached using it?

Initially there may be 'interpretation' going on, but when work is reviewed over and over for a few hundred years and consensus is reached, it would be hard to imagine that all the scientists (from all faiths, backgrounds, nationalities, sexes, and ages) reached the same 'interpretation' if it was wrong. Sure things will be refined, but one falsification happens, it is pretty much a dead issue and abandoned.

As far as young earth creationism is concerned, there are several independent lines of evidence that led to conclusions by many independent scientists that showed that this is a falsified conclusion. It was Christian scientists who originally falsified it when they went out to look at the creation. It is pretty much a dead issue in mainstream science because there are too many things that simply would not or could not exist if the world was indeed young.

The last hope for creationists is to claim conspiracy of 'secular' science but of course that ignores that there are many Christians (in the past as well as today) working within it who have come to the conclusions that are accepted by mainstream science. They are the Christian scientists who approach creation objectively, unlike AIG and ICR, who maintain that no matter what they find in the creation (the direct work of God) their preconceived conclusions cannot be wrong.

 

[vossler]

Denying and ignoring the direct work of God (the creation) and what it tells us and claiming by definition if it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible could not be a more fallible approach. It is poor science and poor theology.

Isn't denying the Bible and what it says even worse than what man has determined that nature says?

I don't minimize the bible or its truths. Please don't put words in my mouth. I steer clear of groups who claim to be Christian ministries who deceptively and purposely mislead other Christians about what the creation tells us and claim that they hold truth when they can be shown to be holding on to ideas that are false. The falshood of their ideas is evidenced by the very work of God that we can touch and feel.

Well I said:

"Just as you did here, it seems apparent to me that you and many other evolutionists quickly dismiss or minimize the Bible as our primary source of truth."

Your response to that was a none response, so I think it was then fair to say that you do minimize the bible.

Above you state that your Christian brothers at AiG and ICR "deceptively and purposely mislead" without any substantiation thereof. So are we to take your word on this?

You hold these fallible, prideful, egocentric man in higher regard than God's own created works.

So are you telling me God's created works take precedent over His Word?

Telling a Christian something is true (young earth creationism) only to let them find out later that it is false (and falsified) is dangerous. It will only steer them away from the theological truth of the bible.

Again, you make the claim of falsified information without substantiating it.

 

[notto]

So are you telling me God's created works take precedent over His Word?

Over man's fallible interpretation, yes. The creation is a direct work of God. A young earth cataclysmic history of the earth was the mainstream interpretation based on this fallible interpretation until man actually went out looking at the creation. It turned out that the interpretation was wrong and the earth wasn't young at all. It was Christian geologists who first came to this conclusion (to their dismay) and they realized that they had been wrong to interpret the biblical passages in a way that claims the earth is relatively young.

The evidence that led them to that conclusion has not gone away. A young earth is falsified by the evidence they first uncovered and many more independent lines of evidence since them. Things exist that can't exist if the earth is young unless God is purposely trying to deceive us. Again, not good theology to conclude that is the case because the integrity of creation cannot lie to us.

It was fallible interpretations of the scripture that led to the trial of Galileo. How did that turn out again?

We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy
Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture.

I'm guessing Galileos accusers would have no problem with the AIG statement of faith. Why are YEC's not geocentrists?

 

[vossler]

So man's fallible interpretation of the Bible is to be discounted while his infallible interpretation of nature is to be lifted up. Interesting!!!

Since Bible interpretation is so, well, fallible, what do you purpose that we do with it?

 

[notto]

So man's fallible interpretation of the Bible is to be discounted while his infallible interpretation of nature is to be lifted up. Interesting!!!

Yep - turns out Galileo was right.

Since Bible interpretation is so, well, fallible, what do you purpose that we do with it?

Not try to convince new Christians that they have to accept falsified science in order to be Christians. Not set up the Bible and its study of the theological truths there to be falsified by suggesting that the only valid interpretation is one that conflicts with what a careful study of the creation shows us. Use the Bible to understand theologial truths and the nature of God. Study the actual work of God in the creation to understand the creation.

Just a thought.

On a side note, it is not being suggested that mans study of creation is infallible. That is why we use the scientific method to determine what is valid and what is not. It eliminates the fallibility of any one individual and gives us a framework to come to an objective conclusion.

 

[vossler]

Well that says all I need to know! Thanks for being so open and frank.

 

[mixin machine]

Things exist that can't exist if the earth is young unless God is purposely trying to deceive us. Again, not good theology to conclude that is the case because the integrity of creation cannot lie to us.

This is an interesting point notto!!! Let's say that 5000 years ago God took the earth and stirred it with a wooden spoon. Did he have to do it to deceive us? Or because the things he changed back then confuse us now, does that make God deceitful?

I don't know to me it doesn't sound like a dangerous theology. But then again I am just human, what do I know.

 

[notto]

This is an interesting point notto!!! Let's say that 5000 years ago God took the earth and stirred it with a wooden spoon. Did he have to do it to deceive us? Or because the things he changed back then confuse us now, does that make God deceitful?

I don't know to me it doesn't sound like a dangerous theology. But then again I am just human, what do I know.

Some people used to think that dinosaur bones were put there by God to deceive and confuse us. I think that is dangerous theology. Current creationism is really no different. There are things that simply can't be explained if the earth and universe is young unless God purposely placed them there and we are being deceived by creation. I think that is dangerious theology as well.

 

[Numenor]

Honestly, it really sounds like don't trust God, trust man. Another low for the Christian forums.

AIG and ICR are deities now are they?

If a new Christian asks me 'Who made the universe?' I will point them to Genesis 1-3. If they ask me 'How was it made?' I will not send them to AiG or ICR. Yes, a new low for Christian Forums indeed.