YEC's Unite Continued

[Underdog77]

Old Earth proofs - I don't have time to list them all - Google or go to talk Origins for list after list of these. Go to many University Geology or Astronomy department pages.

By stating 'assumptions' you are somewhat misunderstanding the use of the word in science. The computer you are typing on is based upon theory requiring assumptions. Every physics/chemical/biological/engineering model in existence is predicated upon assumptions of one form or another. There is no equation of everything that can be solved. Without making some assumptions at some level we would not have anything beyond the wheel and fire.

Of course a good model of anything is able to verify the assumptions made at some level.

Your statement at the end of your post though nicely encapsulates science in the sense that nothing is ever proven 100%.

1) you either a) have no evidence b) are dodging my question or c) are too lazy to give me anything.

I didn't ask for all the evidence I just asked for some. Give a couple of facts (with relatively good backround...don't just tell me radiometric dating without an explaination) that without a doubt point to an old earth. Or list a couple of things that disprove a young earth.

2) I suppose I should explain terms I use. I know that neither side can be "proven"...at least not in this life, later in Heaven the truth will be made known. When I say proven, I guess I mean the evidence points to it.

Like if you only hear a duck quack but you don't see it, you best guess is its a duck, but techniquely you can't prove from where you are.

 

[Underdog77]

Underdog, my personality can be rather sarcastic and caustic at times, and I certainly didn't mean to frustrate or anger you in the other thread. It was hopefully only a case of misunderstanding...

In any case, it's important to realize that you can't go into science with preconceived notions about the universe... you can't just decide the Earth is some age and try to fit the data to it. If the data says otherwise, you must change your ideas. Otherwise, you are no longer discussing science.

I will admit that sometimes I let my emotions flood my posts sometimes, so I apologize to anyone if I get a little tense.

But in answer to your post: You also can't go into the Bible with preconcieved notions about it. You can't just decide what it should say and then twist it a little to fit the data into it. If the unfallible, Holy Word of God says otherwise, I suggest you change your mind.

Secondly and unfortunatly, lots of the data gathered was discovered (or even made up) by scientists who went in with preconcieved notions. People are always telling me "Well of course you can find evidence for a young earth, you can find evidence for anything if look for it.", yet they fail to realize the same goes for them. Many scientists look for proofs of evolution, and what do they supposedly find? Proofs of evolution. And then we (the common folks who don't really do the experiments on our own, so we are forced to either the word of the scientists or think differently and in doing so look stupid) take what say they found and build arguements with them.

The scientists were thinking evolution while going in and the brought stuff with the evolution label coming out.

We take these evolution labeled facts and then try to squeeze them into the Bible. This isn't right. It says "Thy word is a lamp to my feet a light to my path" not "Thy word and science...". That's my problem (or one of them) with Christians who believe in evolution. They take the word of evolutionary scientists and use it to change the Word of God.

You must take the Word of God as it is, otherwise you are not discussing honest Theology.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

OOPS! I was going to add this about the dating methods.

When we take the example of Uranium-Lead dating, we must also mention that Helium is released through the process.

Now some calculations were done, but not without some assumptions of course. But these assumptions made favored evoltion.

Assuming that there was no Helium in the atmosphere to begin with, assuming that the release of Helium was constant, and assuming that there haven't been any non-radiometric releases nor extractions of Helium; the calculated amount of Helium in the air along with the rate of release tells us the earth is 2.2 million years old.

Wow!

Even with good, evolution-minded assumptions we get a relatively young earth! Only 2.2 Million years. Not enough, really, for evolution. While I don't believe that is the real age of the earth it does hinder the evolutionists view. There is room for adjustments to lessen even more the age of the earth but that would, again, be made on assumptions.

you also assume that no helium escapes earth's gravity in the troposphere and moves to the upper levels of the atmosphere, so measuring the concentraiton of helium at sea level would give you a falsely low reading.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

OOPS! I was going to add this about the dating methods.

When we take the example of Uranium-Lead dating, we must also mention that Helium is released through the process.

Now some calculations were done, but not without some assumptions of course. But these assumptions made favored evoltion.

Assuming that there was no Helium in the atmosphere to begin with, assuming that the release of Helium was constant, and assuming that there haven't been any non-radiometric releases nor extractions of Helium; the calculated amount of Helium in the air along with the rate of release tells us the earth is 2.2 million years old.

Wow!

Even with good, evolution-minded assumptions we get a relatively young earth! Only 2.2 Million years. Not enough, really, for evolution. While I don't believe that is the real age of the earth it does hinder the evolutionists view. There is room for adjustments to lessen even more the age of the earth but that would, again, be made on assumptions.

When a model doesn't work, it is a good sign that at least one of the assumptions is faulty.

 

[L'Anatra]

I will admit that sometimes I let my emotions flood my posts sometimes, so I apologize to anyone if I get a little tense.

But in answer to your post: You also can't go into the Bible with preconcieved notions about it. You can't just decide what it should say and then twist it a little to fit the data into it. If the unfallible, Holy Word of God says otherwise, I suggest you change your mind.

If I was to go into the Bible with the mind of a child and read I would within its first two chapters find to contradictory stories of creation. This is indeed what I have done on numerous occasions. Additionally I'd like to point out that the canonical portion of the Bible was not decided on by God, but by fallen men (not that the Holy Spirit didn't guide them). So, indeed, the Bible hasn't exactly been unchanged for thousands of years.

Secondly and unfortunatly, lots of the data gathered was discovered (or even made up) by scientists who went in with preconcieved notions.

Well, sure; everybody's human. Still, the scientific community itself corrects these issues. Perhaps a scientist can expound on this...

People are always telling me "Well of course you can find evidence for a young earth, you can find evidence for anything if look for it.", yet they fail to realize the same goes for them.

It isn't the evidence for a theory that's important so much as the evidence that falsifies it. The Earth is not "young."

Many scientists look for proofs of evolution, and what do they supposedly find? Proofs of evolution. And then we (the common folks who don't really do the experiments on our own, so we are forced to either the word of the scientists or think differently and in doing so look stupid) take what say they found and build arguements with them.

I would recommend that you actually go read what evolution actually is. You continue to discuss "evolutionary" thought processes. I contend that they do not exist. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the cosmos, the age of the Earth, or the origin of life. Besides, we uneducated people really aren't qualified to think differently about the numerous tenets of modern science.

The scientists were thinking evolution while going in and the brought stuff with the evolution label coming out.

That's silly. Either way, being that the Theory of Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology, it stands to reason that scientists will go into their field with the idea that the theory is useful. Facts don't have an "evolution label."

We take these evolution labeled facts and then try to squeeze them into the Bible. This isn't right. It says "Thy word is a lamp to my feet a light to my path" not "Thy word and science...". That's my problem (or one of them) with Christians who believe in evolution. They take the word of evolutionary scientists and use it to change the Word of God.

Nothing is being squeezed into the Bible. It is not a science book!

You must take the Word of God as it is, otherwise you are not discussing honest Theology.

Take it as it is... why wouldn't I? I will not, however, take it as whatever you think it is.

 

[Card42]

CA ----Humanity
|
|
-------Aples

sir,
i may be inclined to believe
that men share a common ancestor
with other primates

however,
to suggest that us humans
share a common ancestor
with apples,
delicious as they may be,
and good for you,
is outright preposterous.
my uncle is no apple.

you're just giving the YEC's
more ammo.
now, instead of asking
"have you ever seen a horse
give birth to a goose",
kent hovind will simply say,
"have you ever see a chimpanzee
give birth to a piece of fruit".

tee hee

 

[PaladinValer]

That was supposed to be "apes;" the "l" is a typo that I have fixed.

 

[Card42]

That was supposed to be "apes;" the "l" is a typo that I have fixed.

Nooo way!
i don't know
what's with me tonight.
i'm feeling
extra cheeky

 

[GodSaves]

NO! That is probably one of the oldest accusations against evolution in the book. Evolution does not state humanity evolved from apes but that humanity and apes share a common ancestor. There is a huge difference:

CA ----Humanity
|
|
-------Apes

"Theistic" implies a belief in a actual Divine Being or Force, no?

I find this very insulting. This is the Christian-only section of CF and you dare to ask whether we really believe in Jesus? As if we weren't "Christian enough?"

[rant]Forgive me folks, but I've just about had enough of literalists and YECs treating TEs and many OECs as if we are second- or even third-class Christians. The very notion that they must ask us whether we believe in the Blessed Trinity like "they do" because we aren't as literal as they are is something utterly detestable and revolting.[/rant]

Wow, I am sorry. I was not intending to state anything about your faith. I honestly was asking of the TE's beliefs. L'Anatra, in post #10 had said that my question if TE's believe that man evolved from apes was correct. He had this written before he went back and edited it. Maybe he edited it because that wasn't what he meant, which is fine. In the previous thread Chi_Cygni also affirmed men are apes. Now I am sure he was trying to be "scientific" in this statement. I asked a simple question not out of being mean but to know TE's beliefs. I am fine if you want to get upset with me or whatever, but please know I was not doing anything more then asking a harmless question, with no intended meaning behind it. I want to know TE's position before I make any argument against it.

Now I am going to ask another question, and please know that this is not to be mean.

What Bible verses does a TE use to back up their belief that Genesis, when talking about creation is suppose to be taken as allegorical, and not literal? Mind you I am not looking for someone to say because I think I should. I would like to know if there are verses that back this belief.

I would also like to know that if there are Bible verses that tell you God created some creature where ape and man evolved from.

I am trying to understand where TE's came to these beliefs, and why.

God Bless

 

[PaladinValer]

What Bible verses does a TE use to back up their belief that Genesis, when talking about creation is suppose to be taken as allegorical, and not literal?

Simple: we recognize the fact that the Church, which with the aid of the Holy Spirit Canonized the Bible, knew that much of the old literal Hebrew takings of the Bible were wrong. The OT implies a flat Earth and the members of the Council knew that and also knew that current scientific evidence proved that the Earth was a sphere. What to do then with those passages? The Holy Spirit influenced them to not reject them nor delete them but, rather, to state that the Bible contains everything necessary for salvation and is authoritative in matters of doctrine and faith only. Since science is outside that authority, it wouldn't matter if the Scriptures mistook them. It didn't matter to them since the Holy Spirit told them the Bible was a book of religion and theology, not necessarily human history or science. This belief is still present in most of Christianity: Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, many Quakers, and other more liturgical Protestant and Calvinists. We recognize this historical belief of the Early Church as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[L'Anatra]

L'Anatra, in post #10 had said that my question if TE's believe that man evolved from apes was correct. He had this written before he went back and edited it. Maybe he edited it because that wasn't what he meant, which is fine.

I indeed edited post #10 because I wanted to make it clear that men did not evolve from modern apes. In my mind, if we were to go back and actually see the common ancestor of men and modern apes, we would likely call him an ape as well. I mean, if by a certain definition of the word "ape," we are apes, then our ancestor would also be an "ape." Just not a modern one.

It's probably just a matter of semantics. That, or I'm missing something, which is entirely possible.

 

[Bushido216]

Understandable.

But back to what I believe is the ultimate need for evolution (theistic or atheistic): time.

Is there any proof of an old earth? Geological- no. Chemially- no. I have not proof that isn't based on assumptions. If you can, please present some.

Lack of certain isotopes... radiometric dating...

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

 

[GodSaves]

Simple: we recognize the fact that the Church, which with the aid of the Holy Spirit Canonized the Bible, knew that much of the old literal Hebrew takings of the Bible were wrong. The OT implies a flat Earth and the members of the Council knew that and also knew that current scientific evidence proved that the Earth was a sphere. What to do then with those passages? The Holy Spirit influenced them to not reject them nor delete them but, rather, to state that the Bible contains everything necessary for salvation and is authoritative in matters of doctrine and faith only. Since science is outside that authority, it wouldn't matter if the Scriptures mistook them. It didn't matter to them since the Holy Spirit told them the Bible was a book of religion and theology, not necessarily human history or science. This belief is still present in most of Christianity: Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, many Quakers, and other more liturgical Protestant and Calvinists. We recognize this historical belief of the Early Church as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Sorry maybe I wasn't clear in what I was asking for. I want some Bible Verses that point a person to believe that Creation is not literal.

My apologies, I just don't put my faith in man for the reason why creation as it is stated in Genesis is not really how it was. That is why I would like any of the TE's to step forward with Bible Verse backings for this belief.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Wow, I am sorry. I was not intending to state anything about your faith. I honestly was asking of the TE's beliefs. L'Anatra, in post #10 had said that my question if TE's believe that man evolved from apes was correct. He had this written before he went back and edited it. Maybe he edited it because that wasn't what he meant, which is fine. In the previous thread Chi_Cygni also affirmed men are apes. Now I am sure he was trying to be "scientific" in this statement. I asked a simple question not out of being mean but to know TE's beliefs. I am fine if you want to get upset with me or whatever, but please know I was not doing anything more then asking a harmless question, with no intended meaning behind it. I want to know TE's position before I make any argument against it.

Now I am going to ask another question, and please know that this is not to be mean.

What Bible verses does a TE use to back up their belief that Genesis, when talking about creation is suppose to be taken as allegorical, and not literal? Mind you I am not looking for someone to say because I think I should. I would like to know if there are verses that back this belief.

I would also like to know that if there are Bible verses that tell you God created some creature where ape and man evolved from.

I am trying to understand where TE's came to these beliefs, and why.

God Bless

The structure of Genesis indicates that is not the type of literature that is intended to be a literal historical account.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Sorry maybe I wasn't clear in what I was asking for. I want some Bible Verses that point a person to believe that Creation is not literal.

My apologies, I just don't put my faith in man for the reason why creation as it is stated in Genesis is not really how it was. That is why I would like any of the TE's to step forward with Bible Verse backings for this belief.

There are no Bible verses that explicitly say one way or the other.

 

[GodSaves]

Actually, I have started a search in the Bible for such a thing.(evidence on how we should read Creation in Genesis) And I have so far in a few days search I have found many, that I believe to be very clear.
I will be continuing my research and after some TE's present such verses or conclude that man decided this was how they are going to interpret Creation, I will present my findings.
One thing I have learned in a recent study is that the Pharisees spent alot of time studying scriptures and analyzing them, but yet they missed the whole point.

So please if you can find some verses to back the TE belief I would love for you to share them.

Also, another question are TE believe in tolerance or intolerance?

God Bless

 

[GodSaves]

Oh fragments, explain to me what you mean by the structure of Genesis.

Thanks!!

 

[L'Anatra]

Also, another question are TE believe in tolerance or intolerance?

God Bless

That's an interesting question... tolerance or intolerance toward what?

 

[GodSaves]

Tolerance or intolerance on the teachings of the Bible. Such as homosexuals, there a few verses that say this is a perversion, or abomination. I would never try to indicate that we should do anything other then love these individuals, but some churches have seen it fit to let these individuals be priests or pastors of the church. Again, I have nothing against homosexuals and nothing against them if they want to attend church. I am just giving an example.

 

[Bushido216]

Should Homosexuals be allowed positions in the Church, probably not since the Church doesn't like that sort of thing.

However, homosexuality is a result of natural processes, so I can't imagine how they can be an abomination if the condition occurs naturally.