Young Earth Creationists unite!

[GodSaves]

My problem is not with OEC, my problem is with someone saying the Bible is false, in one way or another. Just so it is clear. If one is to say the Bible is false in anyway, this creates an argument for non-believers to say if the Bible is wrong in one area then it is quite possible it is wrong in another area. Personally, the Bible is correct or it is not. But again, I have the belief of a child.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Actually Chi, I haven't even interpreted this part of Scripture, I just believe it as it says it is. I actually believe God is capable of doing this, I believe God can do anything. I mean He did create the universe and all how hard would a world wide flood be, or the plagues in Exodus be for God? I don't know if it was a world wide flood, but I sure wouldn't put it past the ability of God.

He could have but he didn't.

My apologies for mistating carbon dating. Scientists used carbon dating on dinosaurs and they dated to about 16,000 years old.

No they haven't. You have to be very careful - most Creationist organisations (if not all) deliberately make up lies like this or take something way out of context.

Would you tell me how you can even date a dinosaur fossil with carbon dating? No paleontologist would do this - it makes no sense to.

The scientists figured this was wrong because it didn't go with their belief. So they then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again. They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other - how’s that for an "exact" science.

Again - I think you are just repeating Creationist lies. The only time an error of 150 million years would occur is when dating meteorites at 4.6 billion years (and even then the error is probably less than this.) By the way - plus or minus 150 million over 4.6 billion is only a 3% error. Thats pretty darn good.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

My problem is not with OEC, my problem is with someone saying the Bible is false, in one way or another. Just so it is clear. If one is to say the Bible is false in anyway, this creates an argument for non-believers to say if the Bible is wrong in one area then it is quite possible it is wrong in another area. Personally, the Bible is correct or it is not. But again, I have the belief of a child.

And that is their right to do so.

But what is more damaging is when non-believers see people cling to infallibility at all costs when it doesn't pass muster. Then they think Christianity must be totally wrong - or at least Christians are rubes.

 

[GodSaves]

And that is their right to do so.

But what is more damaging is when non-believers see people cling to infallibility at all costs when it doesn't pass muster. Then they think Christianity must be totally wrong - or at least Christians are rubes.

And you believe that Bible teachings are false. Extremely harmful.

 

[L'Anatra]

GodSaves,

can you answer my questions?

 

[Ron21647]

<snip>
My apologies for mistating carbon dating. Scientists used carbon dating on dinosaurs and they dated to about 16,000 years old. The scientists figured this was wrong because it didn't go with their belief. So they then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again. They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other - how’s that for an "exact" science. But hey thanks for the nice way of saying I made a mistake, "do you understand this? is this being dumb?" I appreciate it.

Here is a link on radioactive dating.

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

It posts or links to a lot of articles on both sides of the debate. I read one of the young earth people's papers, a Dr Plaisted, and a rebuttal of his article. They go back and forth several times. I was not impressed by Dr Plaisted. Most of the paper is on potassium - argon. while talking about possible errors, he uses the phrases "could have" or "might have" a lot. According to the rebuttals, he is just making this stuff up, and that is why he needs the disclaimer. He also uses a somewhat dihinest tactic of saying "I received an email from a friend on this subject, and here is what he said", then quotes several pages of unattributed material. In the rebuttal, they refer to a paper by another creationist by the name of Dr. Slusher, and cite the pages of his paper where the "email" came from.

Some of the articles here are pretty technical, but if you read and understand them, you will have no choice than to come away with the opinion that radioactive dating is correct the majority of the time, most of the possible errors are well known, different methods agree with each other within the margin of error, and the creationist papers make a habit of taking things out of context or just plain lying. They also quote material 50 or 75 years old, without pointing out that methods have improved since then.

They also cite some information on Woodmorappe. He has a paper that lists 400 errors in radiometric dating. It turns out that 94 of those are using K-Ar dating in the mineral biotite. What he doesn't say is that biotite should not be used for K-Ar dating, and he got his data from a paper on that subject, but left out the explanantions on why the dates were bad, and what to look for so as not to make the same mistakes.

Ron

 

[Underdog77]

And that is their right to do so.

But what is more damaging is when non-believers see people cling to infallibility at all costs when it doesn't pass muster. Then they think Christianity must be totally wrong - or at least Christians are rubes.

You teeter on relativism. Your way of thinking is one of the most dangerous (if not THE most dangerous) threats against the belief in God. Relativism leaves truth to be defined by the individual whereas Biblical Christianity says truth was given by God (a perfect, just, infallible God) to us.

Call it 'slippery slope' or whatever you want to call it, but the truth remains (and I believe I remember you admiting it) that if the Bible is fallible, then people will twist it, edit it, and/or use it in the way they want it done and the Bible therefore exists not as God's instructions to us but rather mere suggestions that can be used (believed) if the individual wishes.

 

[Underdog77]

And indeed, that is what he did. And we have figured it out by a number of methods. They all agree and point to 4.55 billion years as the correct age.

Ron already summed this up.

If you can't find enough humility in your heart to accept that you are simply a smart animal then you have a lot of growing up to do. Sadly, there are many who can't accept it. This has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution anyway. I'm certainly not saying that we aren't specially made or that we don't have souls, but the body that you inhabit is unequivocally that of a smart animal. It is made of precisely the same bits.

This is patently false. A group of loonies decided to wildly distort the simple notions of a portion of a scientific theory and try to apply them to human society. One more step and you'll fall out of line... you've been here long enough to know these are lies.

Good grief! It's a scientific theory, for Pete's sake. It doesn't lead to any sort of "thinking."

Stop putting words in God's mouth. That is not a request!

I propose that a great deal of your supposed "faith" rests squarely on your wild notions about "evolution," which is absolutely ludicrous. I also submit that you haven't the faintest clue as to what the theory actually states.

This is not pointed at you specifically, Underdog, but I'd like to point something out: if you can't trust your own brain to provide you with knowledge about the outside world, then as far as I'm concerned you can't trust that you even know how to read. And in that respect, you can't trust that you understand the Bible at all. That, in my mind, is also logical.

If you can't trust your own brain to provide you with knowledge, then get rid of your computer and your technology. Don't fly on airplanes and don't believe in spaceflight. Don't accept the predictions of the NOAA and certainly don't visit a medical doctor. If you can't trust your own brain, how can you trust anyone else's? That these devices and machines and methods work rests squarely on mainstream modern science. But apparently it can't be trusted.

You have lies coming out the wazoo!

Only about 90% of dating methods indicate millions+ years! You all seem to want me to change my beliefs because 'nearly every other Christian believes OEC' yet when the majority of evidence does not indicate an old earth you want me to follow the minority! Dumb logic goin' on there .

If you can't find enough humility in your heart to accept God's word as it is even though it contridicts what you believe and even though it contridicts the practice (the thing known as science, which is fallible and has been shown so time and time again) of fallible men, then you still have a lot of searching to do.

And are you trying to tell me that where we came from does not affect our other beliefs? If so, there's a large lack of thinking on your part. I'm not sure where but in the other Creation/Evolution I gave a post that gave a general idea of what can (and does sometimes) happen when we think evolutionary. Evolution affects everything we believe: sociology, economics, theology (obviously), politics, psycology, etc....

BTW, I don't put words in God's mouth, I just let people know what He said.
Please stop twisting God's words into heretical sayings just to support your anit-God therefore anti-Bible and ultimately anti-Christian belief (evolution).

I propose that a great deal of your wild evolution notions defy the Bible and its teachings squarely. This is ludicris. I also submit that you haven't the faintest clue as to what the Bible actually says.

This is not pointed out you specifically L'anatra but I would like to point something out: If God didn't use evolution and we are the special creatures that the Bible says we are then we are able to think logically (for the most part). But If you are right and we are just animals with souls, then I shouldn't trust my brain. Nor should I trust your brain and the thoughts that come out of it (evolution, OEC, blah blah blah). That in my mind and in the minds of many others is also logical.

If mainstream science and all that you said that rely on the brains of animals, and if we really should be scared and cautious when using them (again, as you say), then whenever you use them, ride them, participate in them- you exercise more blind faith than any true Christian does by believing and living by the infallible Word of God.

 

[Underdog77]

[/color][/size][/font]
You should be ashamed of this post.

You are very scared aren't you?

All you come up with are appeals against 'slippery slopes'. Get some confidence, you're only 17 - it's possible to change.

By the way, Hitler was a non church attending Catholic and was a believer.

Is that all you can come up with? Personal attacks from another poster don't even register with me . You should be VERY ashamed of this post. You are so scared that a 17 year old may actually know something you don't. It's ok, you should remember that the number people put up is the number they want up there and isn't necessarily true.

Who knows how old you are? Maybe your young enough to change too.

Also, thanks for helping me out. The fact that Hitler was a 'believer' and that he also believed in evolution should alarm some evolution believing Christians out there. If that's what can happen when you mix the Bible and evolution then I am all the more against it .

 

[Chi_Cygni]

It was not a personal attack in the same way that you saing Ron had 'lies coming out the wazoo' was not personal, right?

Glass houses.....

 

[1GODALONE]

The bible is an accurate PROVEN (yes, try to prove me wrong!) history book in every way. However, i beleive the earth is moderately old.

 

[Underdog77]

It was not a personal attack in the same way that you saing Ron had 'lies coming out the wazoo' was not personal, right?

Glass houses.....

a) my point was that you said nothing substantial in addition to what you said
b) I didn't say that to Ron
c) I not only checked L'anatra's post, but I had reasons to go along with it
d) You still have nothing substantial in your reply

illogical repetition...

 

[Bushido216]

And you believe that Bible teachings are false. Extremely harmful.

No, but Chi believes false are some interpretations of the Bible. YEC's are holding their own interpretation of the Bible to be infallible. That's not correct.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

You're right - it was l'Anatra you said that about.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

The bible is an accurate PROVEN (yes, try to prove me wrong!) history book in every way. However, i beleive the earth is moderately old.

Not a history student are you?
Ever wonder why the Bible is not used as a history text in universities?

Do you really think Exodus happened on the scope implied in the Bible?
Do you really think the Jericho siege happened as in the Bible?
Do you really think the entire world was under water some 4500 years or so ago?
Do you really think the 'Red Sea' parted?
Do you think all the geneaologies in the Bible are correct as written?

etc
etc
etc

 

[Ron21647]

Underdog77, I am guessing you have not tried to read the article I posted on dating. Because if you had, you would be busy reading instead of posting nonsense here.

Ron

 

[GodSaves]

No, but Chi believes false are some interpretations of the Bible. YEC's are holding their own interpretation of the Bible to be infallible. That's not correct.

Actually check on this thread Chi is quoted on here saying that the Bible is factually false, the Bible is fallible. These have been his statements. Again, I have some arguments against OEC, but my main problem is one says, by the angelican sign above his name, is a Christians but says the Bible(WOrd OF GOD) is fallible. I find something extremely wrong with this. I don't think one can be a true Christians and claim that the Word of God is fallible. But then again I do not compromise between the Word of God and the word of man so that both can be right. In my view doing this is because your faith is fragile.

I am doing a word study right now on the word faith, and when I am done I think I am going to present what I have learned on here. Because it seems that at least one person believes that if I believe God and everything He says to be true, my faith must be fragile. All because ones mind cannot grasp the things God can do, and because other men have rejected or not found 'enough' evidence to prove it. I wonder why we have found alot of seashells on various mountains that are quite far from any ocean or water.

I do believe that the belief of how this universe came into being and the way it came into being is important to our faith in God. But again this isn't my point for this message. It is a supposed Christian basically saying God lies sometimes, by saying His Word is fallible.

 

[Bushido216]

Is the Bible fallible as a textbook of history? Most likely yes, it is. Fortunately for all of us mortals, we're not worried about history. Am I the only one who gets the feeling that the OT is written alot like Aesop's Fables mixed in with Words to Live By? The theological truths are profound and infallible. The histories of Job and Leviticus and Noah are so unimportant to the grand scheme of things.

And never call my faith weak ever again. You have no right to say so. What I have done is decided that taking the Bible as a textbook flies right in the face of the evidence that God has left us in his Creation. That's lunacy. My ability to percieve that the theology of the Bible is more important than the history is what makes my faith even stronger.

And BTW, that seashell arguement is such a tired canard. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html

Enjoy the read.

 

[GodSaves]

I do wonder though, do theistic evolutionists also believe man came from apes? And when do you believe man came into being in the whole 4.6 billion years the universe has been around? I have read most believe it was 1 million years ago. Before man, was earth pretty much chaotic in its evolutionary change?

And I wasn't actually calling your faith fragile, but rather saying the belief in the previous sentence is because ones faith is fragile. But hey it was all good when Chi called my faith fragile, right.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Men are apes. That is a fact too.

YEC's and facts just don't go together do they?