Young-Earth Creationism

[LouisBooth]

"Ussher wasn't a Christian? Good Lord! "

YOu have shown me no where that they claim it, so thus you still have a lack of evidence to it.

ordained? Whatever, i don't care if they are the pope. A political office doesn't imply christianity. Now, if you're going to show me evidience to your claim, do it, otherwise renig.

"1) Does God intend us to study nature?
2) Does God reveal himself through nature?
"

Yes and yes. I would also say that 1. studying something doesn't imply total knowledge of said thing. Thus we must have drawn faulty conclusions that will be reveiled at a later date, such as gravity not being universal, etc...

 

[Morat]

YOu have shown me no where that they claim it, so thus you still have a lack of evidence to it.

ordained? Whatever, i don't care if they are the pope. A political office doesn't imply christianity. Now, if you're going to show me evidience to your claim, do it, otherwise renig.

  Ah, are you now trying  to play the "Not a True Christian" card I predicted earlier?

   How desperate of you, Louis, to claim that an Anglican priest (Ray) and an Anglican Bishop (Ussher) weren't true Christians, not to mention a Lutheran(Liebnitz) whose admitted lifelong goal was to reunify his church with the Catholic church as well as an Anglican vicar (Buckland).

   I suppose the biographies I linked to were part of the 'vast atheist conspiracy' to make these poor people out to be good Christians when they were really Satanists.

   Louis, I expected better of you. Your response is ridiculous. How you can sit there and reply than two ordained priests (Ussher had to be ordained to become a Bishop) of the Anglican church weren't Christians!

  Further, your response indicated that you didn't even bother to read the bios I linked to. If you had, you'd have noticed that John Ray was a noted Anglican theologian, and author of The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation and Three Physico-Theological Discourses.

  Your remarks about Ussher are just as bad, as Ussher was the famous Biship whose chronology YEC rests on. "He wasn't a Christian, he just happened to be an ordained Bishop who used the Bible as historical fact to calculate the day God created the Earth is all".

   Seriously, Louis, do you honestly consider your response to be a valid objection? What sort of twisted, bizarro world do you live in where you can just ignore what you don't want to be true?

    I pointed out two famous Christians on the list, and picked 5 names in the middle. One of those five was a priest, and the others all Christian as well. And your response? "You didn't prove they were Christians!".

    What the hell do you want, Louis? Is ordination not enough? Are their theological writings not enough? Do you want a bloody engraved "True Christian" certificate from God? 

   Does anyone feel that saying person X is an ordained Anglican priest is insufficient proof of their Christianity? Especially in the 1600s?

 

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Ussher wasn't a Christian? Good Lord! "

YOu have shown me no where that they claim it, so thus you still have a lack of evidence to it.

ordained? Whatever, i don't care if they are the pope. A political office doesn't imply christianity. Now, if you're going to show me evidience to your claim, do it, otherwise renig.

"1) Does God intend us to study nature?
2) Does God reveal himself through nature?
"

Yes and yes. I would also say that 1. studying something doesn't imply total knowledge of said thing. Thus we must have drawn faulty conclusions that will be reveiled at a later date, such as gravity not being universal, etc...

So, God intends us to study something that he made to look as it is not? This sounds a bit deceptive to me. I mean, if I altered my car's odometer and then told someone to check it, I would be deceiving that person.

-jon

 

[Didaskomenos]

Come, come, Morat. Certain learned and devout Christians have the distinct privilege of bestowing salvation upon those with whom they agree, and denying it to everyone else. You should be awed at the display of Christian maturity, not angered.

 

[Morat]

  It's annoying. Apparantly unless I open his throat and cram information in, I'm not "supporting myself". It's blatantly obvious he can't or won't muster the effort to click a link and read.

   How he can claim two ordained priests and a vicar are "not obviously Christian" is beyond me.

 

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Morat
Does anyone feel that saying person X is an ordained Anglican priest is insufficient proof of their Christianity? Especially in the 1600s?

 

There are two reasonable answers. One is that anyone who makes even a reasonable pretense of following Christ is a Christian. The other is that only God knows. The latter is probably technically true, but I think there's a tendency to play the "no True Christian" card WAAAYYYY too often. The fact is, most of these people are/were Christians, and good devout ones at that. Christians are sometimes wrong about things, even things that seem obvious to other Christians.

I think this whole thing is a side-effect of trying too hard to preserve Christianity's reputation by making sure that only the best people are *REALLY* Christians.

 

[LouisBooth]

"How desperate of you, Louis"

*sigh* not desperate at all. I'm just showing how your claim is false. I think you were alive in his time you would call mr newton desperate as well..an unseen force? you're desperate Issac. LOL. keep droning on Morat. I simlely asked for proof. If it is that simple, surely you can provide some instead of droning on and on and on....


"I mean, if I altered my car's odometer and then told someone to check it, I would be deceiving that person."

and I would say your analogy was flawed, for you had no purpose behind changing it that was "good".

 

[blader]

simlely asked for proof. If it is that simple, surely you can provide some instead of droning on and on and on....

I agree with the other five people on this thread who believe that Morat has provided more than adequate proof in his original post. It's not his fault that you refuse to see it.

 

[RufusAtticus]

"You are the Dancing Queen, young and sweet, only seventeen
Dancing Queen, feel the beat from the tambourine (oh, yeah!)
You can dance, you can jive, having the time of your life
See that girl, watch that scene, dig in the Dancing Queen."

http://users.cis.net/sammy/danceq.htm

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by LouisBooth


"1) Does God intend us to study nature?
2) Does God reveal himself through nature?
"

Yes and yes. I would also say that 1. studying something doesn't imply total knowledge of said thing. Thus we must have drawn faulty conclusions that will be reveiled at a later date, such as gravity not being universal, etc... [/B]

Have you ever once concidered that YOU might be the one who has drawn faulty conclusions Louis?

Or are you blessed above all other men and unable to make a mistake?

 

[LouisBooth]

"It's not his fault that you refuse to see it."

i don't see a post that links to a profession of faith at all, just a list of names.

"Have you ever once concidered that YOU might be the one who has drawn faulty conclusions Louis?"

yes, I have, like all people (except it seems evolutionists ) Admit that I could be wrong, but I don't see it at this point from the data or the bible.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by LouisBooth

i don't see a post that links to a profession of faith at all, just a list of names.

 

[LouisBooth]

problem ruf? is the scientist not liking the scientific approach of pure facts?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
problem ruf? is the scientist not liking the scientific approach of pure facts?

LOL. No-true-scotsman is anything but scientific.

Why can't you admit that you were hasty to write off such men like Bishop Usher as not being Christian?

http://www.go-newfocus.co.uk/articles/archbishopjamesusher.htm

 

[LouisBooth]

"Why can't you admit that you were hasty to write off such men like Bishop Usher as not being Christian?"

I'm not at all. Hmm..I'd have to say most of his life choices seem politcally based, wouldn't you?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
I'm not at all. Hmm..I'd have to say most of his life choices seem politcally based, wouldn't you?

And that has what to do with his status as a Christian?

 

[LouisBooth]

"And that has what to do with his status as a Christian?"

Well it shows me that if he is more politically minded in his choices, it might be because he is not a christian and thus is doing what benefits him...etc...If I choose evolution just because I'm pressured into it then I'm not a true evolutionist am I? Nope

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So anyone who says or does anything that Louis Booth might dissagree with at any point in either their or Louis booth's life is not a "True Christian" TM.

 

[RufusAtticus]

If no True Christians (TM) are involved in politics, then what does that mean for the Republican Party in the upcomming election. After all, they are more True Christian (TM) than the True Christian (TM) Democrats.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"And that has what to do with his status as a Christian?"

Well it shows me that if he is more politically minded in his choices, it might be because he is not a christian and thus is doing what benefits him...etc...If I choose evolution just because I'm pressured into it then I'm not a true evolutionist am I? Nope

So by those standards, what constitutes evidence for a person's Christianity?