YEC's Unite Continued

[Chi_Cygni]

It seemed to me that you were equating the Bible as being literally part of God. Hence I commented that it's a Trinity we accept not a four-fold entity.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

"That, to me, is Bible idolatry. However, you can believe the Bible itself is inerrant, just know that you could interpret important portions of it in a manner that God did not intend."

No, that would be self idolatry if anything at all. Not Bible idolatry. When people start saying things though like "That's just your interpretation" you know something is up. The Bible is pretty clear on issues that churches seem to think can be interpreted many ways. Things like creation, homosexuality and Jesus being the only way. This is a more general statement I'm making by the way so don't say I was accusing you of believing in any/all of those things.

"Besides, how boring would the discussion be if it wasn't edgy?"

I have no problems with a discussion being edgy. As long as name calling and putting of people down is kept out of it. Also if you going to call something a lie back that up with facts. Not just with a statement saying it's a lie.

"Of course science can not determine whether deity exists. It is, by definition, a study of the natural world. God is a supernatural being, as you said."

That would be "natural science". Normal science shouldn't limit it self to only the natural. If you do that your conclusions can end up being completly wrong.

"Of course science is open to various views. It just isn't open to falsified theories. Young Earth Creationism was falsified 150 years ago by geology. Countless features of the Earth and of the Universe simply can not exist (unless God is a liar) if the universe is 6,000 years old and no older."

It's statements like this that bug me. Many reasons why. The statements are not true and you do not even attempt to back them up being the main reasons I have problems with posts like this. Geology shows much evidence in fact of a worldwide flood. You have layers, rock formations and fossils that point to one. I know it's a statement you probably have heard a lot but that doesn't make the statement any less true.

"It's nice to see that we can agree from time to time."

Yes it is.

"I was questioning it... the passages did mention "lies." I was wondering if you considered the scientific facts to be lies."

If they are facts they are not lies. What you call facts though I may not call facts. Then it could be a lie if they person still uses this so called "fact" even though they know it's untrue. Otherwise I would just call the person either uninformed for decieved but not a liar. I know people like Kent Hovind like to call evolutionists liars all the time but he really needs to be more careful with his words. I have talked to him in person and via the internet several times by the way. I don't like his approach all the time but he's not some evil antichrist like some "Christians" try to make him out to be.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I'm off to bed, I don't know if I'll revisit this thread. I often don't even revisit this site. My IM information though is in my profile and I'm more then willing to talk on there with people that believe in evolution or people that beieve in YEC. Night everyone!

 

[L'Anatra]

I'm off to bed, I don't know if I'll revisit this thread. I often don't even revisit this site. My IM information though is in my profile and I'm more then willing to talk on there with people that believe in evolution or people that beieve in YEC. Night everyone!

Good night and God Bless.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

It's statements like this that bug me. Many reasons why. The statements are not true and you do not even attempt to back them up being the main reasons I have problems with posts like this. Geology shows much evidence in fact of a worldwide flood. You have layers, rock formations and fossils that point to one. I know it's a statement you probably have heard a lot but that doesn't make the statement any less true.

As a professional scientist it is statements like this that bug me. Creationist geologists over 150 years ago falsified the Flood. You can whine and whine about it - but that is a fact recorded in the geology texts by Creationists.

How come almost every geologist on the planet agrees that the rocks say no to a global flood - and what is more the fossils and rock formations directly contradict the deposition a flood would leave.

This was realised well over a hundred years ago and the evidence hasn't changed for the Flood lovers. In fact it has gotten worse.

Again, why do the professional geologists almost to the last man or woman reject the global flood idea except for the fact the evidence is against it. It has been falsified, no if's and's or but's about it.

Of course, I'm sure the worlds geological community wont get in the way of 2500 year old Jewish mythology that some folks cannot let go of.

 

[pressingon]

Notice as well there are scientists who are not believers in God who also make mention that there had to have been some miracle for life to come forth in 4.6 billion years.

Agreed. Though personally I think the arguments on both sides are weak from a scientific perspective.

Not to nitpick on a single statement or take your words out of context, but could you clarify this response a bit?

Just wanted to make sure I understood what you intended to convey.

 

[Enigma'07]

As a professional scientist it is statements like this that bug me. Creationist geologists over 150 years ago falsified the Flood. You can whine and whine about it - but that is a fact recorded in the geology texts by Creationists.

New evidance turns up every day. I would look at that befor I site evidence from 150 years ago.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

The evidence has gotten worse for the YEC's not better. I was just relating that it was bad for them 150 years ago. It hasn't improved.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Not to nitpick on a single statement or take your words out of context, but could you clarify this response a bit?

Just wanted to make sure I understood what you intended to convey.

I was trying to convey that all the probability based arguments both for and against abiogenesis are scientifically unsound.

 

[L'Anatra]

New evidance turns up every day. I would look at that befor I site evidence from 150 years ago.

Once a theory is thrown away, it can never come back. That's exactly like thinking new evidence could somehow bring back the Ptolemaic cosmology. Young Earth Creationism was false 150 years ago, is false now, and will always be false.

 

[Enigma'07]

What if people have interprited evidence wrong. Then it could.

 

[L'Anatra]

Indeed... I'm sure it's likely that people have interpreted every last bit of corroborating and independent lines of evidence over the last 150 years. All the research in astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology, archaeology, and paleontology (among others), has been useless and misguided. Thousands of people have spent their entire lives researching and studying in these fields and yet all of them have somehow been decieved by the Creation itself.

No. I'm not falling for that. "What if people have interpreted the evidence wrong?"
Yeah, that's a gigantic "what if?"

In science, you can prove something absolutely false. This was done with Young Earth Creationism 150 years ago, as I said, when geologists discovered features in the Earth that could not exist if it was only 6,000 years old. Scientists throughout all of those other fields have found nothing but more damning evidence.

 

[Enigma'07]

In science, you can prove something absolutely false. This was done with Young Earth Creationism 150 years ago, as I said, when geologists discovered features in the Earth that could not exist if it was only 6,000 years old. Scientists throughout all of those other fields have found nothing but more damning evidence.

Then why is there a movment with many of todays leading scientists FOR YEC? Can you tell where you get this geological evidence. I would be interested in reading it.

 

[L'Anatra]

Then why is there a movment with many of todays leading scientists FOR YEC? Can you tell where you get this geological evidence. I would be interested in reading it.

No, there is not. There is a movement for Young Earth Creationism, but it is not in "today's leading scientists." This isn't a personal attack, but it exists predominantly in a body of uneducated Bible literalists who allow those in positions of authority to deceive them.

Here's a site that mentions some of the geological evidence that falsifies the Noachian flood, for example: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm

Here's a list of Frequently Asked Questions by creationists: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Please read the detailed FAQs involving the age of the Earth, c-decay, polystrate fossils, and Creationist credentials.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Then why is there a movment with many of todays leading scientists FOR YEC? Can you tell where you get this geological evidence. I would be interested in reading it.

There isn't.

Their numbers are miniscule and not one of them, I repeat for effect, not one of them is a leading scientist.

In fact almost all of them are either MD's or engineers or people who got a science PhD and then left science 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

 

[Underdog77]

There isn't any.

Next...

Oh yeah...That's intelligent ...not!

 

[Underdog77]

I'm not a big Strobel fan. But I want to hear of your scientific expertise.

You must not be a big fan of truth either...oh wait, I already knew that.

Also please give me at most two strong 'scientific' arguments you, in light of your expertise, believe are cogent arguments for a young Earth.

I'm not sure if Enigma replied to this already but if you haven't, don't. Chi's just trying to lead you (and everyone else for that matter) down rabbit trails. He has made it clear that he believes the best stuff is the evidence that cripples the other model. Instead of being distracted with this, list some stuff that defies the possibility of an old earth, Enigma.

 

[Underdog77]

Are you sure it's not your wishful thinking that leads you to conclude they are good points?

I ask the same question to you Chi.

 

[Underdog77]

Chi_Cygni, is there ever a time that you aren't condescending or rude? Look at your signature, people are stupid. Great statement of judgement for a Christian to go around with.

Everyone who believes in evolution easily dismisses ICR as being fools or foolish. Who is it Chi that you, who claims to be a Christian, are calling a fool? Hmm, lets see ICR is made up of other Christians and you are calling other Christians fools. Doesn't seem too healthing for Christians as a whole. ICR has many well educated men/women of science with, yes a biased opinion on the creation of the world because who do they believe, GOD.
Then we have scientists who are not men/women of God(on an generalized scale of the total) claiming a big bang type theory and evolution. These people are also biased because they want to disprove creation. Who do you put your faith in for the creation? The men and women who, on the majority, do not believe in God, and are trying to disprove the idea of God in creation.

Shouldn't science be unbiased and produce the same results no matter what your faith or non faith is? Of course. Notice as well there are scientists who are not believers in God who also make mention that there had to have been some miracle for life to come forth in 4.6 billion years. Some of these people are saying that aliens planted seeds in the ocean and that is where we came from. Maybe this will be your new opinion of how life came to be, when everyone realizes that a cell, as complex as it is, could not have evolved out of the primordial soup. Or wait, maybe you will believe that God created this primative type ape and that is where we came from. Then God's image must be a primative ape, since God said He created man in His image. But that is proved wrong because Jesus was a man not a primative ape.

What I find to be convincing to me is that science keeps evolving and changing its "facts" on how things began. All because tomorrow brings more evidence that shows they were wrong with their previous assumptions. Creationism has never changed.(Genesis Literal) Creationism doesn't have to change to covers everything in a very logical way if you do believe in God, because God can do all. But I guess many need to have evidence of this so they can believe. And here it is yet again, FAITH. Faith that one believes God did what He says He did.

Which claim gives adds ammo to those who do not believe, creationism or evolution? It is too easy for one to dispute the Bible and its authority if you say that if a part of the Bible doesn't produce evidence that we can see at this moment, then it must be taken allegorical. And it must also be taken allegorical if we do not understand how it could have happened like it did. It also must be taken allegorical if our minds cannot grasp what happened. So one will say, as they have, that Jesus, salvation, God, hell and heaven, all must be taken allegorical as well, because we cannot grasp the concept of heaven and hell, we cannot understand how we can have salvation, and certainly we have never seen God so He is allegorical as well. Heck, it is all just a lesson in life created by man without any intervetion by the Holy Spirit, let alone God or Jesus. I am hoping that you are not apart of the believing in this 'new translation' of the Bible to come from and Angelican Bishop and a Baptist Pastor that turns almost all the teachings to teach the opposite.

These are the type of statements I have come across on this forum as well as in life due in part to people saying such miracles are allegorical. I am aware that you will say that creationism adds more ammo to the non-believers because it is too big to comprehend, and there is no found proof. Of course there is no found proof for the big bang type theory, or evolution as far as where man evolved from. And you as a TE believes that God is all powerful and could have created everything if you took Genesis literal. So you still have the same argument as a literalists, is God all powerful, can He do miracles? Such as walk on water, calm the storm, raise the dead, feed 5,000 with a few loaves and a few fish, call out demons.


L'Anatra, I am trying to put together a thorough answer to your question on Genesis 1 and 2. I could give a simple answer but that doesn't really help any. =)

God Bless

Amen to that.

 

[Freedom777]

There isn't.

Their numbers are miniscule and not one of them, I repeat for effect, not one of them is a leading scientist.

In fact almost all of them are either MD's or engineers or people who got a science PhD and then left science 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

Why do you state as fact what you can't possibly know? Pride comes before a fall,a haughty spirit before destruction. I would suggest to you as a brother in Christ to not believe everything you here. And in evolution theory i would ask you to remember this. Interpretations are many for lots of facts, but only one truth for each of those facts. May the Lord open us up to them. Satan is a counterfeiter, Christ is the Truth.