Jump to content


Please Give Some Evidence For Yec


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

#1 Guest_disagree_*

Guest_disagree_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 January 2007 - 09:54 PM

Where I live, there aren't any young-earth creationists. Every religious person I've met believes in evolution and an old universe, and not in the literal translation of the Bible. So, I find this whole idea of a young earth very foreign, and it seems contrary to everything I've ever learned about science and the universe. My community is very secular and very liberal, though, much unlike where this theory heralds in the U.S.

Now, it would be very unfair to dismiss it all without hearing your guys' side, so I hunted down this forum, and I ask you now to please, if you have some spare time, present your side. I will probably debate some points with you.

I read in another thread that you guys believe your theory has a lot of traction in the science community (which was strange to me, because I'd never heard of it, and I'm an avid science enthusiast), so I googled around, and found this list of credentialed scientists who oppose YEC: all named Steve. This seems contrary to that claim.

I know I ask a broad thing, but I would appreciate much if you indulge conversation on the matter.

#2 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 24 January 2007 - 11:38 AM

I know I ask a broad thing, but I would appreciate much if you indulge conversation on the matter.

View Post


The main evidence for young earth creationism ( and I'm sure Fred or Ikester will correct me here if I'm wrong.) is the christian bible itself. This, combined with Bishop Ussher's chronology puts the creation of the earth at around 4004 BC.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/James_Ussher

My own personal view is that the Big Bang theory is a better description of the early universe and follows the observable facts better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 January 2007 - 12:24 PM

Scientific evidence? None that science would accecpt. Why? Think about it, science has basically based itself around the theory of evolution. All the other theories have to conform to it. To accept even one, just one evidence, would put all their theories into question. So it will never happen.

So you ask for evidence to put YEC on a slippery slope as an entrapment type question. But knowing the truth about how, and why science will never accept YEC evidence, will never entrap me.

It falls into the same lines of how Carl Baugh was treated for finding those foot prints. And how the evolutionists sic the enviromentalist on him to pass a "hurt the river law" to leep him from digging up the rest of those prints.

They are now doing the samething to AIG as they are trying to open the museum. Enviromentalist-evolutionist are pulling out all the stops to block the opening of this museum. They even are getting threats.

Same tactic, same reason. Evolutionist are not about truth. They are about always being right. or should I say: Trying to look right.

#4 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 24 January 2007 - 12:34 PM

Think about it, science has basically based itself around the theory of evolution.

View Post


That may be true of biology, but I imagine physics and chemistry would be perfectly alright without TOE.

I just don't see what use a false science would be. Newton's laws are used in aviation - what use would they be to building a plane if they were all made up? The same applies to TOE. If it's just a pretty story with no explanatory power or truth or predicitve ability, it's no use to me and I'd discard it in a shot.

#5 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 January 2007 - 01:24 PM

The main evidence for young earth creationism ( and I'm sure Fred or Ikester will correct me here if I'm wrong.) is the christian bible itself.  This, combined with Bishop Ussher's chronology puts the creation of the earth at around 4004 BC.


That's the primary reason to accept that the earth is young. However; there are measureable quantities such as the earth's magnetic field decay, and the diffusion of helium from zircons that provide physical evidence that the earth is not old.

I suppose we should throw in the T-Rex bones that are not completely fossilized as well. Yeah, ....,they really look 65 millions of years old....

My own personal view is that the Big Bang theory is a better description of the early universe and follows the observable facts better.


What observable facts?

Terry

#6 D R

D R

    Mole troll. AKA dbs944

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Respectfully Withheld

Posted 24 January 2007 - 02:02 PM

The main evidence for young earth creationism ( and I'm sure Fred or Ikester will correct me here if I'm wrong.) is the christian bible itself.

My own personal view is that the Big Bang theory is a better description of the early universe and follows the observable facts better.

View Post


First I would like to say that the Bible is no more the “evidence” of creation than Darwin’s book The Origin of Species is the “evidence” for evolution.

Picture if you will a table with three items on it.

The first item is a box. This box contains the “evidence” . What is this evidence? Jason78 has already identified it for us. The box contains the “Big Bang Theory” evidence. It’s critical you understand this point. There is only one set of evidence. For example: An evolutionist and a creationist are standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon. A third person asks each of them, “Where is the evidence for what you believe to be true?”. Both the evolutionist and the creationist point to the Grand Canyon.

There is only one Grand Canyon, so how is it each claim it as their evidence? It all comes down to how each choose to interpret that evidence.

Now back to our hypothetical table with three items. There is only one box with only one set of evidence. What are the other two items? They are two books – one book is the Bible and the other book is The Origin of Species. These two books each offer two separate and distinct methods by which a person can choose to interpret the “evidence” on the table.

There is no “our evidence” and “their evidence”. It all one and the same. It comes down to how you choose to interpret it.

Scientific evidence? None that science would accept.

View Post


As Ikester has stated, (secular) science will never accept the Biblical interpretation.

As for how to understand the science behind the Biblical interpretation, that would require more deep, in-depth discussions on a myriad of various scientific issues (physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology etc.) than a mere debate in a forum would be able to do justice to.

There are many web-sites available which already discuss the scientific aspect of creation. I offer some below. Some here may or may not like or agree with everything on those sites. However if you truly seek an answer to your question, then go there and spend time reading the abundance of scientific information offered. Also be sure you note the scientific credentials of the many scientists who say the box of “Big Bang Theory” evidence supports the Biblical interpretation.

http://www.icr.org/r...ch_creationsci/

http://www.icr.org/r...searchp_papers/

http://www.answersin...ome/area/qa.asp

http://www.answersin...home/area/bios/

(There are other sites as well. Don't feel you need to limit yourself to the ones I offered.)

#7 Guest_disagree_*

Guest_disagree_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 January 2007 - 03:35 PM

Okay, I see that many of you who believe in a young earth claim that secular science won't accept your evidence, one of the reasons being that because if they did, it would throw a questionable, if not fatal, light on many scientific theories.

Now, why is this? Why did science became so secular, and, according to YEC, filled with erroneous theories? Why do so few scientists believe in a young earth? And I think this touches on: Why do people become secular in the first place? I know some of you claim your beliefs are obvious, but if a young earth and/or the existence of your deity are obvious things, why would anyone oppose/disagree? I think because, although many YEC followers may find it obvious (due to their religious upbringing perhaps), many non-religious people don't.

Now, I know you might say that yes, to a person raised away from the truth of God, it wouldn't be something obvious; but that would be fallacious, and I'll try and explain why. Firstly, in respect to myself, I wasn't raised apart from God -- it was present in my family, just not the extent of many American/Islamic families. I attest with complete honesty that as a child, I was reputed to be very questioning, and I was really. I was always very critical of everything, religious belief not excepted, by cause of no outside influence I'm aware of. And secondly, it would be fallacious because you presume without showing that there is any truth away from which I was raised.

I would add that ever since the industrial revolution, religious belief has seemingly waned obscure throughout most advanced nations, particularly those European (where once the Christian faith predominated). I know this isn't the case in America, and I have a link which addresses that, and this entire issue.

Do young-earth believers think there has been some attempt to cover up the Biblical truth? And, if so, why would anyone do that, if it could lead to their eternal damnation?

#8 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2390 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 Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 24 January 2007 - 09:04 PM

The main evidence for young earth creationism ( and I'm sure Fred or Ikester will correct me here if I'm wrong.) is the christian bible itself. 

View Post


For me personally, I suppose the Bible is the main evidence when witnessing to fellow believers who are Old Earthers. However, I arrived at my belief in YEC backwards than perhaps most. I became skeptical of an old earth because of the scientific evidence against it, before I really knew or understood that the Bible did not support an old earth. Around that same time I started taking the Bible more seriously because it was jiving with the evidence I was seeing.

My own personal view is that the Big Bang theory is a better description of the early universe and follows the observable facts better.


The big bang is dead, but it still lingers becuase it's such an embedded paradigm for many (ie mystical religion), it won't go away. But even hardened atheists are now rejecting it becuase obserational evidence continues to contradict it severely. Don't beleive me? Then why are some pretty prominent secular scientists lobbying to have it scrapped? See the list of signees.

Fred

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 January 2007 - 09:19 PM

Okay, I see that many of you who believe in a young earth claim that secular science won't accept your evidence, one of the reasons being that because if they did, it would throw a questionable, if not fatal, light on many scientific theories.


Just like a creationist who decides to believe old earth (actual passage of time), and evolution (denying the power of God to create). It eventually leads to non-belief. Or a very weak belief in God.

Now, why is this?  Why did science became so secular, and, according to YEC, filled with erroneous theories?


Now here is where you make an assumption because you already have decided to have a tainted-bias view of all who would believe YEC. It's not that the theories are erroneous, it's the refusal to look in any other direction. Which means the goal of each theory is to support a wanted truth, and not in any other direction the evidence might lead.

Like the moon dust theory. Do you know how much NASA (science) spent to disprove this theory? Not to figure out if it were true, but only to disprove it. !3 tests later, and I estimate about 1/2 billion dollars.

Why do so few scientists believe in a young earth?  And I think this touches on: Why do people become secular in the first place?  I know some of you claim your beliefs are obvious, but if a young earth and/or the existence of your deity are obvious things, why would anyone oppose/disagree?  I think because, although many YEC followers may find it obvious (due to their religious upbringing perhaps), many non-religious people don't.


For a well known scientist to change his views in favor of young earth. Is a guarantee to the end of his career. And any papers, books, conclusions, plus any degrees become useless. And are thrown out. So there is a peer pressure to conform and accept, or be removed and discredited.

Now, I know you might say that yes, to a person raised away from the truth of God, it wouldn't be something obvious; but that would be fallacious, and I'll try and explain why.  Firstly, in respect to myself, I wasn't raised apart from God -- it was present in my family, just not the extent of many American/Islamic families. 


Sorry, no one that runs this forum is Islamic. But I'm sure you meant that as a slur.

I attest with complete honesty that as a child, I was reputed to be very questioning, and I was really.  I was always very critical of everything, religious belief not excepted, by cause of no outside influence I'm aware of.  And secondly, it would be fallacious because you presume without showing that there is any truth away from which I was raised.


We have had several cronic liars in this forum. And evolutionist often refer to us as cronic liars as well (on their websites and forums). So excuse us while we treat others as we are treated. You can blame this attitude on recent events here, where some evolutionists decieved, lied, etc... And were caught and banned for it. Just about every person that has come here and started out just like you have, ended up doing the same exact thing in one form or another.

I only take to be true about 10% of what ever a evolutionist says. Just as I'm sure you think the same way about any creation believing Christian. And you can blame this attitude on previous encounters here, and else where for that.

I would add that ever since the industrial revolution, religious belief has seemingly waned obscure throughout most advanced nations, particularly those European (where once the Christian faith predominated).  I know this isn't the case in America, and I have a link which addresses that, and this entire issue.

Do young-earth believers think there has been some attempt to cover up the Biblical truth?  And, if so, why would anyone do that, if it could lead to their eternal damnation?

View Post


People who are cronic liars, and represent what is against God. Will say and do anything to acheive their goal. Which includes faking what they believe. Like what evolutionist do for entertainment, and out right untruth as shown here:
http://www.yecheadqu.....0poster 5.jpg

http://www.yecheadqu...s...l mod 3.jpg

http://www.yecheadqu...s...l mod 2.jpg

And we get these same tactics everyday here. And evolutionist wonder why they get banned. And wonder why we have the rules we have. We learn from their tactics, therefore we become not as gulible to them.

So what would you say the goal of why you started this thread?

#10 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2390 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 Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 24 January 2007 - 09:33 PM

present your side...

View Post


Some have already mentioned a few (ie magnetic field decay and helium retention). My personal favorites are

1) Carbon 14 in coal, diamonds, natural gas (C14 has a half life of 5600y, so it should long have decayed into N14; yet we virtually always find C14 in stuff that is supposed to be millions of years old). See thread.
2) Helium in zircons (as previsouly mentioned). See thread. I’ve just re-opened it.

Now you will of course find an “answer” to these problems by googling. You have to ask yourself if they are credible explanations, or illusion/wishful thinking. There is an “answer” for everything. Tell someone they are a nut for believing Bush planned 9-11, and you’ll get an “article” or some “evidence” to show he did. Tell someone they are a loon for thinking Elvis is still alive, and they will show you their “evidence” of his appearance. Tell someone they are wacko for thinking OJ is innocent, and they’ll show you the illusion of a glove that supposedly didn’t fit. Etc. It’s up to you if you are going to try to be objective, or choose to believe what you want despite the evidence.

Why do people become secular in the first place?


See this thread on ‘Evolution and Liberalism’.

Do young-earth believers think there has been some attempt to cover up the Biblical truth? And, if so, why would anyone do that, if it could lead to their eternal damnation?


The answer to this is easy, men “love darkness rather than light”:

“And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. “ - John 3:19-21

Fred

#11 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 25 January 2007 - 03:56 AM

1) Carbon 14 in coal, diamonds, natural gas (C14 has a half life of 5600y, so it should long have decayed into N14; yet we virtually always find C14 in stuff that is supposed to be millions of years old). See thread.

View Post


It seems to me that this argument could easily be settled by doing a study of the correlation between C14 in coal seams relative to the level of Uranium therein. I'm not sure how likely a mainstream scientist is to get funding for that, but one of the creationist institutes really ought to give it a go. It would be great ammunition if no correlation existed.

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 January 2007 - 05:08 AM

It seems to me that this argument could easily be settled by doing a study of the correlation between C14 in coal seams relative to the level of Uranium therein.  I'm not sure how likely a mainstream scientist is to get funding for that, but one of the creationist institutes really ought to give it a go.  It would be great ammunition if no correlation existed.

View Post


And what secular science institute would take the findings into consideration? Remember, all creationists are liars (according to "all" evolutionists forums and websites).

#13 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 25 January 2007 - 05:38 AM

And what secular science institute would take the findings into consideration? Remember, all creationists are liars (according to "all" evolutionists forums and websites).

View Post


Even if that were the case, one can't just call "lie" on actual experimental data. In order for creationism to be taken seriously as science, it needs to build up a body of such data itself rather than picking holes in "scientific" data. If an experiment took place and showed no correlation, mainstream science would have to step up and answer.

#14 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 25 January 2007 - 06:53 AM

Where I live, there aren't any young-earth creationists.  Every religious person I've met believes in evolution and an old universe, and not in the literal translation of the Bible.  So, I find this whole idea of a young earth very foreign, and it seems contrary to everything I've ever learned about science and the universe.  My community is very secular and very liberal, though, much unlike where this theory heralds in the U.S.

Now, it would be very unfair to dismiss it all without hearing your guys' side, so I hunted down this forum, and I ask you now to please, if you have some spare time, present your side.  I will probably debate some points with you.

I read in another thread that you guys believe your theory has a lot of traction in the science community (which was strange to me, because I'd never heard of it, and I'm an avid science enthusiast), so I googled around, and found this list of credentialed scientists who oppose YEC: all named Steve.  This seems contrary to that claim.

I know I ask a broad thing, but I would appreciate much if you indulge conversation on the matter.

View Post


Another list of YEC scientists can be found at

<http://www.answersin...ome/area/bios/>

And they are not all named "Steve". :rolleyes:

Physical evidence for a Young Earth isn't that hard to find, if you look for something that doesn't quite fit the evolutionist explanations.

Example, I live in Moab Utah which is famous for local rock formations, Arches National Park.

All around us are sedimentary layers that defy the "experts". Why? No erosion between the layers!!

South of Moab is a 1000 feet high ridge, fourteen miles long without a single "V" cut in any layer or layers where the erosion of a stream or river would have left a mark.

Yes, the top is rough from weathering, but that only proves the point; if the layers were, each, millions of years old, where are the streams, tributaries and so on????

Add to that the recent discovery, and recorded on film, by the Japanese, of another "living fossil", a fish (shark?) that matches fossils supposedly millions of years old.

Old Earth? It seems less and less plausible as the years go by, and evolutionists have to keep "adjusting" their stories to fit.

Young Earth? Creation doesn't have to be adjusted, it just fits.

Budd

#15 Guest_disagree_*

Guest_disagree_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 January 2007 - 10:19 AM

Ikester,

You already have decided to have a tainted-bias view of all who would believe YEC.

Regardless of what my own beliefs are, which are atheistic, I came here to have some open talk, to see how people come to believe entirely different things.

For a well known scientist to change his views in favor of young earth. Is a guarantee to the end of his career. And any papers, books, conclusions, plus any degrees become useless. And are thrown out. So there is a peer pressure to conform and accept, or be removed and discredited.

I don't think I agree with this. From everything I've seen of science, if someone offers compelling evidence as to a new theory, no matter how absurd it may seem at first, it will be considered, and evaluated.

Sorry, no one that runs this forum is Islamic. But I'm sure you meant that as a slur.

Not a slur. I meant that in my upbringing, religion has played a small role, and to compare I juxtaposed myself with the world's two leading faiths.

So excuse us while we treat others as we are treated. You can blame this attitude on recent events here, where some evolutionists decieved, lied, etc... And were caught and banned for it. Just about every person that has come here and started out just like you have, ended up doing the same exact thing in one form or another.

I am familiar with the teachings of Jesus, and is it not he who says turn the other cheek? Because someone commits a sin, you may commit it as well? I do not understand why you begin to talk like this, when I only talk about yours and my beliefs; and it's unfair for you to typecast me like that.

I only take to be true about 10% of what ever a evolutionist says. Just as I'm sure you think the same way about any creation believing Christian. And you can blame this attitude on previous encounters here, and else where for that.
People who are cronic liars, and represent what is against God. Will say and do anything to acheive their goal. Which includes faking what they believe. Like what evolutionist do for entertainment, and out right untruth as shown here: [three links]

When you refuse to acknowledge those who disagree with you, typecasting them how you have, you essentially destroy communication. This is a very bad thing, and out there in the real world, when communication between opposing parties is no longer possible, violence ensues inevitably.

I do not forgo you or other YECers or other Christians (I have Christian friends), as insincere or crazy, or I would not have come. In your post you insult my character unprovoked, and refuse to address the questions I sincerely asked you.

So what would you say the goal of why you started this thread?

I started this thread, as I said earlier, to open conversation. Communication begets peace.


Fred Williams,
Thank you for your evidence. I will certainly look over it, and evaluate it as I can. And you touch on a good point, on how there are indeed evidences or theories in support of things which seem freely absurd, and that it is up to us to use reason along with an open mind do determine what may be true, and what may be false.

About evolution coinciding with liberalism, I would probably agree, but I think this only broadens the question: Why have most the advanced nations in the world become increasingly secular/liberal over time (especially since the industrial/technological revolution)? At any given point in humankind's history before about a thousand years ago, and I think you'll agree, fascism was all but ubiquitous. Why isn't it today? It think the perfect position on the political scale is right in the middle!

I said "Do young-earth believers think there has been some attempt to cover up the Biblical truth? And, if so, why would anyone do that, if it could lead to their eternal damnation?" and you gave me, I think, quotes from the bible. Could you please address these questions another way?


Ghostrider1,

Physical evidence for a Young Earth isn't that hard to find, if you look for something that doesn't quite fit the evolutionist explanations.

I would qualify this as a 'God of the Gaps' argument, which is victim to the logical fallacy that 'If theory A is flawed in some way, then theory B wins the matter by default.' Even if there are flaws in evolution, or the many relating sciences whose contemporary evidence seems to contradict YEC, which I would dispute, this does nothing to strengthen 'Theory B'. I find the rest of what you said the same.

Some questions:
Why is it the only two areas in the world in which there is any doubt over evolution are certain areas of the United States, and certain Islamic controlled states?

As most of you know, the bodies which controlled the Sciences before about two-hundred years ago were all but theocracies. How did they lose control?

#16 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 January 2007 - 02:33 PM

I would have to say that the member name you have selected has predetermined what you are here for. Then your first thread pretty much summed it up.

But I will sit on the sideline and observe as you debate others here.

#17 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2390 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 Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 26 January 2007 - 11:40 AM

I said "Do young-earth believers think there has been some attempt to cover up the Biblical truth? And, if so, why would anyone do that, if it could lead to their eternal damnation?" and you gave me, I think, quotes from the bible. Could you please address these questions another way?

View Post


Why? I believe the Bible provided you with the correct answer to your question. Men inherently are self-centered, they don’t like the idea of being accountable to some higher being, so they suppress anything that does not conform to this worldview. They choose to separate themselves from God, it’s a choice God allows them to make (free will). He won’t force his love on anyone, because of course that would not be love.

Fred

#18 Guest_disagree_*

Guest_disagree_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 January 2007 - 12:18 PM

From my perspective, the Bible is not veracious, which is why I asked you to respond differently.

It is true that according to the Bible and Christian beliefs, "Men inherently are self-centered, they don’t like the idea of being accountable to some higher being, so they suppress anything that does not conform to this worldview. They choose to separate themselves from God, it’s a choice God allows them to make (free will). He won’t force his love on anyone, because of course that would not be love."

But I don't believe these things. Their veracity is a thing you assume. What I ask is, can you answer my questions in another way, with a more reputable piece of evidence than religious text? I cannot accept the biblical claims in that text as true, unless you can show through evidence it accords with contemporary educated consensus on the matter(s) (like how all people are inherently self-centered).

To summarize roughly why I find the Bible not veracious: As I understand, it has undergone countless revisions at the hands of many authors, some anonymous, over the span of about a thousand years(?), and, considering its nature, it can hardly be considered an unbiased representation of historic fact.

#19 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 January 2007 - 09:55 PM

From my perspective, the Bible is not veracious, which is why I asked you to respond differently.


You were given non-biblical physical evidence that the earth is young.

But I don't believe these things.  Their veracity is a thing you assume.  What I ask is, can you answer my questions in another way, with a more reputable piece of evidence than religious text?


There are many things in your world view that you assume to be true as well. Do they hinder your faith?

I cannot accept the biblical claims in that text as true, unless you can show through evidence it accords with contemporary educated consensus on the matter(s) (like how all people are inherently self-centered).


There is no doubt that you cannot accept the bible as being true. If you have negative volition toward God, he will not reveal himself anymore to you than he already has through creation.

Do you want to know God?

To summarize roughly why I find the Bible not veracious: As I understand, it has undergone countless revisions at the hands of many authors, some anonymous, over the span of about a thousand years(?), and, considering its nature, it can hardly be considered an unbiased representation of historic fact.


If a person writes down the truth about history, bias has nothing to do with it. The truth is the truth, and there are many biases in what you believe. Its a matter of which bias is the best bias to be biased with.

I've found the Bible to be veracios in everyway. The Bible says that people sin. Just take a look at the world around you and see if that's not true.

The Bible says that the universe is in a state of decay, just take a look at the world around you.

The Bible says that:

"Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around" . What do you think the war on terror is all about?

The Bilble says that God would scatter Isreal for crucifying their Messaih. That's what happen in 70 A.D.

The Bible says that God would gather Isreal back to Jerusalem. That's what happened after WWII.

If you chose not to believe the Bible, its because you have hardened your heart towards God, it has nothing to do with Biblical truth.

Terry

#20 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 26 January 2007 - 10:17 PM

Snipped to maintain direction

Ghostrider1,

I would qualify this as a 'God of the Gaps' argument, which is victim to the logical fallacy that 'If theory A is flawed in some way, then theory B wins the matter by default.' Even if there are flaws in evolution, or the many relating sciences whose contemporary evidence seems to contradict YEC, which I would dispute, this does nothing to strengthen 'Theory B'. I find the rest of what you said the same.


So, as I understand you, that layer upon layer of unmolested strata ( I'm talking a thousand feet of the stuff, ya know) means "gap theory"?

Sorry, sir, but that is not the case. It would mean that for all those millions of years . . . NOTHING HAPPENED . . . no rain, no snow, no wind, no sun, nothing.

So, is that your statement, that nothing happened ofr "X" millenia?

That makes less sense than a world destroying flood, to me.

As most of you know, the bodies which controlled the Sciences before about two-hundred years ago were all but theocracies. How did they lose control?

View Post

[/quote]

How did any science get corrupted? Theories, unproven, became considered to be axioms, then proof was implied, though still unproven, and because of the axiom status of the theory, resulting in people giving blind faith to often illogical theoretical processes.

Oh, dear . . .did I just describe Evolution?

;)

Budd




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users