Jump to content


Please Give Some Evidence For Yec


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
55 replies to this topic

#41 Guest_disagree_*

Guest_disagree_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 January 2007 - 02:02 PM

Deadlock I have not ignored your evidence. I said in my last post "All that has been provided by yourself and other posters that can be examined I have." and I have as well as I can, but I would like some more links. And I really disagree with your claiming the evidence for YEC is overwhelming, because it seems there is terribly little compared to that opposing YEC.

Okay Fred, no offense taken. Thank you for responding kindly.

I expected this would get your attention.  Now are you prepared to answer the following honestly? Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything, even the most trivial of things? Have you ever used God’s name in vain? Have you ever looked at another woman with lust (Christ says it’s the same thing as adultery)?

You bullseye the issue right here Fred. The thing is, I don't consider some of the Bible's sins to be sins at all (though some I do). I don't do thing's like lie or murder because I wouldn't want anyone to do those things to me. I base my morality almost entirely on empathy. What leads to the suffering of other life? And do unto others as they do unto you. Morality is truly a complicated thing, with an ever-changing zeitgeist.

According to the Bible, yes, there are things I do that are immoral; but according to me, there are things within the Bible and Christianity that are terribly immoral. This matter is simply a difference of opinion between us Fred, and I don't think we can convince each other the merit of our own moral philosophies.

Ironically, it is you who is the zealot like in Galileo’s day. The majority in the scientific community rejected Galileo, and some (not all) in the church chose wrongly and sided with the majority view, just as you are doing now. Unfortunately many have been brainwashed in the public schools to think that Galileo was only opposed by the church, when he was mostly opposed by the scientific community and the scientific elite within the church.

I can see how you would think I am from your perspective, but I disagree. There's just too much evidence Fred. Back then, there wasn't any actual evidence opposing Galileo, just Biblical passages and obstinate scholars who were jealous of Galileo (I know you would think the same of modern day scholars). Now though there is quite a deal of evidence opposing YEC.

And remember that the situation was reversed, it being the Church with power; and the only reason the Church disagreed with Galileo was the same reason you do with me: religion. It was Science vs. Religion then, and it's Science vs. Religion now, though I know that observation in itself does nothing to prove anything.

The Scientists you mention I don't doubt were theistic, probably very theistic, but I wouldn't expect anything different from their time. Within the last two-hundred years, though, all the truly brilliant scientists as far as I'm aware have not been, which is what I should have said.

LOL! If I become nothing at all, why should I care about how I decide my life?! Paul said it best: if the dead do not rise, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!" - 1 Cor 15:32


Why should you care? Because it's your life! It's your world! If you haven't the heart to see why one should care for one's world and life even though one's life is finite, then you are extremely selfish. How do you purport "If I am going to cease existing, to hell with everything!" as a moral thought? Again, we share very different ideas of what morality is and isn't.


God did not create suffering, we did  [merged]
Without free will, love cannot exist.

I thought God created everything, but aside from that, he is God; why not abolish suffering? Why allow any evil to exist? He can do anything.

You say our free will has lead us to sin as much as to love, and that the only way we wouldn't sin is if God did not give us free will. But God has free will, and God doesn't sin, and God loves, so why didn't God make us with a perfect conscience and free will like him? Truly he can do anything, why not that?

And the whole concept of Hell and a loving God I just really find preposterous. It's not that I'm afraid so I renounce it or anything like that; I truly find the thought of it preposterous. I know you'll disagree. Why not let everyone into Heaven, and when they get there, the one's who aren't all that nice get put into some kind of heavenly training course?

Christianity says we all have free wills -- or souls, if you will -- that are seemingly completely different from each other. We're all unique according to souls, and it is who we really are that leads us away or toward God, right? So then when God makes a soul, he in essence determines whether it is good or bad. Unless God doesn't know how the soul will turn out when He makes it, whether he/she'll end up naughty or nice, but doesn't he know everything?

Why not let them live consecutive lives on Earth until they get it right or something? I mean, it boils right down to: God can do anything. God loves us. God can do nothing better with those who sin than burn them forever, even though he loves them. Surely god with his limitless power can devise a better punishment for those whom he loves than infinite suffering? He can do anything! Why not create infinite heavens and let every soul have his own, then his children will never suffer. Maybe come by their heaven every Tuesday for tea. There are literally, as I said before, countless moral and philosophical objections to the God of Christianity, at least in its traditional sense. When I was younger, almost ten years ago, I was involved with the Anglican Church of my family, and the answers the Dean gave me were actually always inspiring. He is by no means a fundamentalist like you guys though, and in the same respect that you remove the Biblical philosophies such as stone people who work on the Sabbath, he removes ones like fire and brimstone to atheists and Muslims and h*m*sexuals.

Here's a little hypothesis as to why Christianity has hell really: OK, first, of all the countless religions that there have been, Christianity is one of the few that survives today, so we know that it is very strong. In order for it to have survived like it has, it must have very powerful incentives indeed to keeps its followers strictly obedient. What incentive is there greater then hell?

I would like it if you guys would address some of my questions, and I would return he favour to yours:
Why not refute the cardinal evidences behind the old Earth, such as those here?
I reiterate Cargo Cults. This is genuine, solid anthropological evidence as to humankind's susceptibility to religion.
Why is there more religions than one?

And I know at the moment this is all just philosophical debate, but debate can be a very good way to communicate and exchange ideas. I greatly appreciate the amount of time you guys have spent responding.

#42 Guest_Gorilla J_*

Guest_Gorilla J_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 January 2007 - 07:01 PM

What an interesting turn of phrase, have you read that description somewhere, is it someone’s quote or an original by yourself?

View Post


I don't recall, honestly. If someone else on the net has a quote similar to/identical to that, then yea, probably I read it and forgot. If not, guess it's an original.

#43 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 January 2007 - 10:16 PM

Ikester's comments are foolish. He makes a broad and hate-filled generalization, in which the actions of some are used to judge all; as such, I will ignore them. Ikester, I truly hope you may some day mature, and learn that every group has its bad apples and that they cannot be used to represent all.


It will happen when your side decides to do the samething. Such as always referring to YEC as flat earthers. Always referring to Christians as killers through the crusades, etc... After having this done to me more times than I can remember. I decided to dish out what has been dished to me. If the shoe don't feel good on the other foot, then why allow it to continue? Because if enough atheists speak up, it will stop and there won't be any need for what I say here and on my site. But I don't see that happening.

When they come in here and make snide remarks at us, bring up the Christian crusades, do you or any of your group tell them it's not warranted, or wanted? So when I see no defense of morales from the side who believes the same way. What am I supposed to think? I think you condone the action because you say nothing.

Hello, everyone. I'm James Mancuso. I found this forum via a quote from a site I'm sure most of you know of, www.fstdt.com, and joined yesterday. I've been lurking since then, reading various debates - I have to say I've been impressed with a number of people on both sides of the argument, although my favor naturally lies with those who are pro-Evolution and atheistic. I look forward to reading more, and perhaps engaging in a few of my own debates with some people.


Then you come from a site that basically promotes the worst part of the hate spewed, and admit to it. But yet have not one thing bad to say about it? Now do you see why I generalize? I see no one speaking out about the bad that comes from your side. So I see no difference from person to person either. No one gives me a cause to. And that is not my fault. For I cannot make a person stand up against what he says is wrong, but decides to sit instead.

#44 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 29 January 2007 - 10:23 PM

Hell is an infinite punishment inflicted on beings who can only commit a finite amount of sin


Humans were created to live for eternity. Is hating God a sin? Of course. Those who reject God will hate him forever, and hence sin forever. They get exactly what they deserve. We all deserve it, our hearts are desperately wicked (Jer 17:9), our only hope is in a Savior.

Fred

#45 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 29 January 2007 - 11:01 PM

According to the Bible, yes, there are things I do that are immoral; but according to me, there are things within the Bible and Christianity that are terribly immoral. This matter is simply a difference of opinion between us Fred, and I don't think we can convince each other the merit of our own moral philosophies.

View Post


I agree I am likely not going to convince you. But I am responsible to warn you of the dire straights you are in. I am 100% convinced the Bible is the truth, and I would be utterly negligent and selfish if I didn’t tell you that there is a looming cliff in front of you. But I'm only responsible to warn you so much, Christians are not called to brow-beat unbeleivers, we are told to move on if it becomes apparent the person doesn't want to hear anything further on the matter.

You’ve done as so many others have done, and convinced yourself into thinking you are good. Now you are not going to like this, but the truth is often painful. You say you have empathy, and oppose suffering, yet why do you very likely support abortion and H*m*s*xuality? You may deny you “support” abortion, but you will admit you think it should be legal, which makes you just as guilty. Unborn babies are the most vulnerable of all, yet you will not defend them while they are slaughtered by the millions. You also support H*m*s*xuality, yet H*mosexual men live miserable lives and have a life expectancy of only 39 years. If you truly had empathy for H*m*sexuals, you would try to steer them away from the lifestyle so they could live long, productive, and happy lives. Instead, you “love” them right over the cliff to destruction.

Now how in the world could I possibly know you support such things? It comes from years of debating origins and knowing the ubiquitous connection between social liberalism and evolution. I know from your worldview that there is a 99% chance you support these things. Your uncle and all your liberal friends who are steeped in evolutionary dogma do as well. I’m virtually certain of this, since I have not found a single counter example in over 10 years of debating. It’s further evidence that people believe in evolution not because of evidence, but because of worldview, or else there would not be such a ubiquitous connection.

Within the last two-hundred years, though, all the truly brilliant scientists as far as I'm aware have not been


All? Now come on, you keep saying all when you know that isn’t true. I thought you said you never lied? :D The last two hundred yeawrs? Louis Pasteur and Werner Von Braun (rocket science) were truly brilliant scientists who were creationists. We have many today who are brilliant and are creationists, such as John Baumgardner (featured in Time magazine for his plate tectonic model), and Russ Humphries (retired from Sandia Labs).

You say our free will has lead us to sin as much as to love, and that the only way we wouldn't sin is if God did not give us free will. But God has free will, and God doesn't sin, and God loves, so why didn't God make us with a perfect conscience and free will like him?


If God does not give us the capability to reject Him, real love could not exist. You cannot force someone to love you, they have to choose to love you or else it isn’t love.

So then when God makes a soul, he in essence determines whether it is good or bad.


This is closely related to a false doctrine called Calvinism that unfortunately many in Christiandom believe (that some are created for salvation (good), and others for destruction (bad). But it is unscriptural. Your comment is completely understandable and further illustrates why Calvinism is such a dangerous doctrine. Calvinism gives God a bad name.

Unless God doesn't know how the soul will turn out when He makes it, whether he/she'll end up naughty or nice, but doesn't he know everything?


God in His Sovereign power chose to create free will, and certainly could choose to be “surprised” by our choices. Here are some examples from scripture, I could give many, many more:

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. Gen 2:19

"And He said, Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God” - Gen 22:12

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing ! - Luke 13:34



Fred

#46 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 30 January 2007 - 02:50 AM

Hell is an infinite punishment inflicted on beings who can only commit a finite amount of sin, and that alone makes it neither just nor righteous.


The God´s judgment is not equal human´s judgment.God´s judgment is based upon what exists in our heart.So, we are condemned by the bad feelings that lead us to make sins instead of the number of sins we commited.

#47 Guest_disagree_*

Guest_disagree_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 January 2007 - 03:06 AM

Fred,

I agree I am likely not going to convince you. But I am responsible to warn you of the dire straights you are in. I am 100% convinced the Bible is the truth, and I would be utterly negligent and selfish if I didn’t tell you that there is a looming cliff in front of you. But I'm only responsible to warn you so much, Christians are not called to brow-beat unbeleivers, we are told to move on if it becomes apparent the person doesn't want to hear anything further on the matter.


First, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your honesty. It is wonderful to communicate without subterfuge or superficiality.

Now, I empathize your position entirely, and I ask you to do the same. I tell you now that I believe with equal vigour that Christianity, all its subsidiaries, and all other religions are false, are an evolutionary anomaly, and are fading away. And as equally you feel it is your duty to inform me of what you think is my fate, I feel I must inform you of what I think is yours; at least in life, for I know not what comes after.

I believe that you are a victim of something ancient and terrible, something that has plagued mankind in many forms since we, or are ancestors, were capable of asking the unpleasant questions. I believe that when we die, something may happen that I cannot imagine, or we may very possibly cease existing as we understand, at least in respect to personalities or "souls" (I know the concept of one no longer existing is quite honestly impossible to imagine: What is it like to not exist? It is truly an impossible thought for our biological brains). I believe that your time, your very precious time has been ill used in all respects relating to your religion, and I believe you actively harm the world by propagating it.

But know I do understand, for if I thought there was someone going to something like hell, and I might make a difference and save that person, I would put forth every effort to do so. It is an altogether noble endeavor.

I am also, however, very critical of you, for I believe there are things you can do to free yourself (Look at Cargo cults. Expand upon it.); but, as I believe may be possible and if so I have no place criticizing you, you may not be able to. I know you would believe the same in respect to me.

why do you very likely support abortion and H*m*s*xuality?


In respect to abortion, this is a funny situation. I actually don't like abortion, though I don't mind stem cell research. I find abortion irresponsible, except in respect to rape maybe, because although I believe in the "right to choose", I think that choice is made when a couple decides to have unprotected s@x. The thought of those little fetuses that could have been people just makes me sad. I don't know if I would describe myself as liberal, cause there are quite a few liberal tenets I'm not very fond of.

However on the matter of H*m*s*xuality I completely disagree. I do not believe that h*m*sexuals live lives any less fulfilling than heterosexuals. In my high-school and neighborhood there are G*ys everywhere; no one cares. Except some of the farmers, but they suck. They certainly don't appear to be any less happy or fulfilled, and where I live, they're pretty open about it and nobody's bothered, not even the religious people. They don't suffer nor cause suffering, they're fine! Let them be in peace, they do no harm or wrong.

And about Scientists I quite disagree, and we will probably have to agree to disagree, I've read papers showing the connection between secularity and all the top scientists. I think that if any of the great greats within the last two centuries were theistic, they certainly weren't fundamentalists or YEC adherents.

If God does not give us the capability to reject Him, real love could not exist. You cannot force someone to love you, they have to choose to love you or else it isn’t love.

All I'm saying is: Let us be made capable of rejecting him, but made as perfect as what the Bible says is perfect (morally) so that we won't. It's not the inability to choose, it's that we're made so good we always choose right. By this it would be possible for someone to reject god, but no one ever would, so it complies with what you say.

But this only raises other questions, such as: Why make children at all, if some will be destined to suffer forever? Would you satisfy your own selfish desire for love at such a cost? Why not destine those who reject you to heaven anyway, being of such mercy? You can seriously just keep comin' up with these.

If God chose to be surprised at how the souls turned out, it would still be pretty cruel, knowing that some of them would be destined for eternal torment.

Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it? (I had to ask)

Jesus died for our sins, so isn't everyone going to heaven anyway?

Thank you.

#48 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 January 2007 - 03:28 AM

How do you know whether I assume things or not?  Because, as far as I'm aware, I don't.   The word assume goes hand in hand with the next word you use: faith.  There is nothing I have "faith" in, faith being belief without evidence.  Everything I believe I have considered with scrutiny


You accept that live evolved from a microbe. That is based on an assumption that such a microbe ever exitsted, an assumption that the earth is old enough to allow enough time for it to exits, an assumption that mutation and natural selection are capable of producing life as we know it, and assumption that the genetic code can develope out of materialistic process(something that is a violation of the laws of nature regarding information).

I doubt that you have really seriously considered what the genetic code means for abiogensis, and even if you had, as you said, you still believe in A,B,C, etc.... so like us you are a person of faith, you have only set yourself up as your own god.

If by negative volition you mean disbelief, you are correct, and how could He, in respect to myself, reveal Himself anymore than He has through creation, when the events as to "creation" suggest otherwise?


As to whether the events suggest otherwise is a matter for debate. They don't really, and if they did you would be interested in the evidence that were given you for why the earth is young, but instead you ignore them.

You make two assumptions in this quote: one being that you purport to know the very mind of the creator, as if an infallible mind may be understood by a fallible mind, and second that he "revealed himself... through creation" when to me he most certainly did not.


The Bible is the "Mind of Christ", so in as much as I know that, I know him, and he is also the creator of the universe, as well as you.

And as to whether or not I want to know god, if I thought there was a god, I would certainly want to know him.
As to whether it has been truth written about history, that is exactly what I claim has not happened, a claim you did not address.  And as to your opinion on bias, the only bias I can imagine being good in any way is a bias toward that which is not true (a bias I think I possess).

Are you saying that a bias in favor of promoting falsehoods is better than promoting truths?


Of course I'm not saying that biad toward falsehoods are better than toward the truth, but that bias itself is not the point, which is often a claim evolutionists make without admitting that they themselves are biased.

The quotes you give me from the Bible seeming to relate to current events or past events are either liberally translated, in my opinion, or blatantly false.


Well, you are just plain wrong. Even when given plain evidence yo ujust ignore it. Consequently, you are as blind as a bat, and there is nothing that I can really say to help you.


For instance, the world in a state of decay?  I think it is quite the opposite, for despite the condition in third world countries (which can be remedied!), the world is much much much happier than it has ever been, especially throughout Europe and nations like Japan.


Have you ever heard of entropy? If I take your viewpoint, or even and evolutionary viewpoint of the universe I would not expect to discover entropy. If I take the Bible's viewpoint, I would.

Which viewpoint is then the better? If you can't admitt that much, then you are just wasting your time here and everyone else's. Time wasting is a violation of Forum Rules, so consider yourself warned.....

Terry

#49 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 January 2007 - 03:58 AM

Jesus died for our sins, so isn't everyone going to heaven anyway?


Jesus is of no use to you if you reject him. You will not be judged for your sins, but for your good deeds, rather ironic isn't it....

Terry

#50 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 30 January 2007 - 04:42 AM

Deadlock I have not ignored your evidence. I said in my last post "All that has been provided by yourself and other posters that can be examined I have." and I have as well as I can, but I would like some more links. And I really disagree with your claiming the evidence for YEC is overwhelming, because it seems there is terribly little compared to that opposing YEC.


Where are the reasons ? You must explain why you disagree and prove that you know something about the matter.That´s the scientifc way

#51 Ghostrider1

Ghostrider1

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Interests:Bible studies, classic Cushman motor scooters, my family, vintage automobiles especially Mopar muscle cars, and fishing
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Moab, Utah

Posted 30 January 2007 - 06:42 AM

[quote name='Ghostrider1' date='Jan 27 2007, 01:44 PM']
[quote name='disagree' date='Jan 27 2007, 11:50 AM']
92g,
For those two questions in specific, no I wasn't.

Yes, you were. The evidences are the same for both Creation and Evolution, the _PRESUMTIONS_ based on those evidences are the difference.

Evolutionist presume Z,X and Y happened over Q period of time and not necessarily in the order required for success.

Creationists see X,Y, and Z happening in six days and in the proper order for success.


How do you know whether I assume things or not? Because, as far as I'm aware, I don't. The word assume goes hand in hand with the next word you use: faith. There is nothing I have "faith" in, faith being belief without evidence. Everything I believe I have considered with scrutiny.

And you think that no Christian has? I have. I used to be an evolutionist until too many gaps went unexpalined, the odds went thru the roof _against_ success, and all the "experts kept changing the parameters.

Logic? It went on vacation and never returned.


If by negative volition you mean disbelief, you are correct, and how could He, in respect to myself, reveal Himself anymore than He has through creation, when the events as to "creation" suggest otherwise?

Do they, or is it just the way you see things?

You make two assumptions in this quote: one being that you purport to know the very mind of the creator, as if an infallible mind may be understood by a fallible mind, and second that he "revealed himself... through creation" when to me he most certainly did not.

To fully understand God would be presumptuous of a mere mortal, to understand what is in the Scriptures not so hard, if you are truly seeking.

And as to whether or not I want to know god, if I thought there was a god, I would certainly want to know him.
As to whether it has been truth written about history, that is exactly what I claim has not happened, a claim you did not address. And as to your opinion on bias, the only bias I can imagine being good in any way is a bias toward that which is not true (a bias I think I possess).

Are you saying that a bias in favor of promoting falsehoods is better than promoting truths?

The quotes you give me from the Bible seeming to relate to current events or past events are either liberally translated, in my opinion, or blatantly false.

Are assumtions based on missing evidence more correct?

For instance, the world in a state of decay? I think it is quite the opposite, for despite the condition in third world countries (which can be remedied!), the world is much much much happier than it has ever been, especially throughout Europe and nations like Japan.

Think: Laws of Thermodynamics. The one about "entropy".

I believe what I do not because I have closed my heart to God, as you say, but because I have opened my heart to the truth.

What have you to prove a truth from those sources? An assumption based on what? An opinion? Based on what? A theory based on ???????

The historical accuracy of the Scriptures has been proven, the accuracy of the Scriptures has been proven, so the contents of the Bible are both historically and factually accurate.


Believe me, I tried. I tried to re-convince myself of God, but I just knew in my heart that it wasn't true. I can no more convince myself of any god than I can convince myself of Santa Claus, or fairies. Anthropology makes it painfully clear how susceptible humankind is to religion and mysticism. I earnestly encourage you, for example, to do some research on 'Cargo Cults', and draw your own conclusions.

Don't try to convince yourself, let Creation convince you.

Ghostrider1,

I will say two things. First, it may be that something did happen over that time, but we just don't know what yet, or that something we don't yet, or may never, understand prevented what we would have expected from happening.

Your reasoning is self-defeating.

If the period of time had happened, there would be erosion damage to multiple layers of sediment, which subsequently refilled, eroded, filled, cut elsewhere, filled, ad nauseum. To deny it would have happened just cut the legs from under your position.

Second, you are right, despite what I say. I, of course, look at the situation as I will, but your view I think in this instance can be equally valid, if your evidence proves veritable. Get it out there! Rub it in your local university's face, and see how they rebut. But when they rebut, consider their rebuttals objectively. Indeed, if your evidence is veritable (which I personally doubt, but I don't know), it would challenge the accepted age of the world and universe.

There are sites, like <www.answersingenesis.org> <www.drdino.com> that are actively promoting the Biblical evidence, but they run into anti-Creation media articles that scoff at anything not fitting their viewpoint, and, in all honesty, like you are doing, condemn without fair trial.

Can you in any way prove this? As I myself believe, and the evidence agrees with me, science was freed from the clutches of fallacious religiosity and mysticism -- thanks be greatly to The Enlightenment -- which birthed an era embracing reason, science and philosophy more so than ever has been previously, when but for no sect, Humanity truckled beneath fascist theocracies. And this enlightening coincided with, be it no surprise at all, the industrial/technological revolution and, for virtually every advanced nation, the beginnings of secularity. Indeed, I may inscribe it as the secular revolution, for Europe, Japan, Canada and I think Australia now host religious demographics of approximately thirty-percent or less. You can see this in the link from my previous posts.

All you've stated is your biases _against_ accepting the creation evidence. Your mind is closed. You have condemned the creation story without fair trial.

Addressed to all YEC followers, I think you really have to challenge things greater than certain geological anomalies like Ghostrider1's, because right now there are several very cardinal, very difficult to refute fundamental evidences behind the age of the universe. You address them too seldom, and I will provide a link describing them, and I would like to see your take on them. I just think you shouldn't try and poke holes in the Scientist's arguments rather than topple them altogether, which is what you really have to do, lest they accuse you of the gap strategy.

If only it were a geological anomoly, then your comment about my evidence would be true, but the same anomoly is found all over the world in sedimentary rock layers, and more ecently, in the newly formed sedimentary rocks and fossils at Mount St. Helens.

Just think, rock forming in a quarter century, fossils in the same period, and just outside that innundated area, in the ash zone, no fossils, no new rocks.


cya

Budd
Edit: The forum program is code written for a limit of 10 quotes per post. We cannot change this because it is not a selectable item in the control panel of this program. I tried to use bold in the place of quotes because there is no limit to the bold selection. I hope I bolded it right. If not you can copy and paste the correct bold between what they say, and what you say to me in a pm, and I will correct the post for you

ikester7579

View Post

[/quote]

Thanks you! I'm giving the "b" codes a shot. I'm not a computer expert by any stretch of the imagination, but if I'm going to be active, I need to learn them ...or write out a cheat sheet, or . . . . .

Budd

#52 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 30 January 2007 - 01:56 PM

Disagree I have been lurking in this thread but feel I must make a couple of points, that may help you with future discussion.

Disagree>
But this only raises other questions, such as: Why make children at all, if some will be destined to suffer forever? Would you satisfy your own selfish desire for love at such a cost? Why not destine those who reject you to heaven anyway, being of such mercy? You can seriously just keep comin' up with these.

If God chose to be surprised at how the souls turned out, it would still be pretty cruel, knowing that some of them would be destined for eternal torment.


IMO this only holds true if you are in favour of predestination, many of the YEC members here do not support predestination but rather “free will” (predestination and free will is mutually incompatible) thus, all humanity is born with the ability to choose a path, all suffering, all good, is a result from those choices. (there are some old discussion in the Bible forums you may like to peruse).

disagree> Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it? (I had to ask)


The answer is No, because the question is not a fair one. There is no possible answer even if one believes that God is omnipotent. The question is a paradox and is formulated entirely within the limitations of our language.

While paradoxes are interesting as academic exercises, I think you’ll find members here are a little more sophisticated, and are groaning inwards that you should even mention this.

#53 Guest_disagree_*

Guest_disagree_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 January 2007 - 03:03 PM

Heh that question was more of a joke :lol: I just heard it somewhere and it made me laugh.

#54 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 31 January 2007 - 11:55 AM

Humans were created to live for eternity. Is hating God a sin? Of course. Those who reject God will hate him forever, and hence sin forever. They get exactly what they deserve. We all deserve it, our hearts are desperately wicked (Jer 17:9), our only hope is in a Savior.

Fred

View Post


How do you go from rejecting god to hating god? I don't either hate him, love him, or reject him. I am incabable of doing any of those things, as I don't believe in his existence.

It's not yet a case of hating or loving god. I have to at least have the knowledge he exists before I can do that.

#55 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 31 January 2007 - 12:07 PM

I think these posts are very off-topic, disagree asked for evidences for young earth, the evidences were given , but he simply ignored them and keep talking about theology and philosophy.I think that he must go to miscellaneous and open another thread about the real matter he wants to discuss.

#56 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 31 January 2007 - 04:28 PM

I think these posts are very off-topic, disagree asked for evidences for young earth, the evidences were given , but he simply ignored them and keep talking about theology and philosophy.I think that he must go to miscellaneous and open another thread about the real matter he wants to discuss.

View Post


Agreed, thanks. Topic closed.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users