So you agree with YEC?
OBVIOUSLY NOT…This O.P is all about YEC, SO MY POINT STANDS!!!
quote=“DavidKo, post:22, topic:56461”]
I’ve been reading my Bible for 37 years and I’ve never read anything about Pangea in it. Can you point me to what you are referring to?
[/quote]
Read Genesis 1:9-10 in context with your science knowledge (after habe done that, pinch yourself for not recognising the correlation)
I really get sick of the poor influence statements on these forums have regarding YEC science and the tendency to then produce naive statements from other individuals who listen to wives tales. I really wish this kind of stupidity would stop in this place. It shows who the dumbasses really are i think.
Youve been reading your bible for 37 years…i wonder what the chances are that you worship on Sunday (or at least believe the bible teaches thst is the official day of worship?).
“Oh we worship Christs ressurrection, thats what saves us” you say.
Thats utter nonsense…Christs resurrection doesnt save us from sin…the wages of sin are death. We are provided with salvation because He paid the price for us (He died!)
His resurrection proves His word can be trusted and that His sacrifice was sufficent to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament Sanctuary service (particularly the Day of Atonement ceremony). It shows that God has the power to.overcome the dewth that sin brings to this world. However no where in the bible are we told to.worship on a different day. Even Christ worshipped on the Sabbath…He worshipped God, not Himself…which is a really interesting thing about His ministry…He never sought to worship Himself…so why worship His resurrection?
Second…where do you get the Trinity doctrine from? In your 37 years of reading it, have you managed to find that word yet?
What does this even mean?
I assume you are makng the claim the hundreds of scholars who were an are actively involved in biblical translation and textual criticism are wrong and that you are right?
This language/genre tripe you are bonding with…honestly, its a dead horse. It is so easy to disprove, the only individuals who stick to that delusion are those who are bound to adhere to unbiblicial theoretical absolutes.
One individual here who remains steadfast to that notion is testament to the academic disaster one finds oneself in when one does not reference their work.
We know we have the correct interpretation of Old Testament scripture because it is explained by multiple biblical authors…referencing makes that flaming obvious. Its even more concrete when New Testament writers also discuss the same understanding as that presented by Old Testament (eg flood account by Christ/God and the apostle Peter)
You all are driving me batty with all your yelling.
My intention with the original post was to hear YEC solutions to what seem to me to be big problems with their views. I suppose there’s no avoiding the debate over the details of those proposed solutions, but it seems to have quickly devolved into “you’re not listening” and “I didn’t say that” and “get your head out of the sand”.
So, let me try to reel it in a bit and see if I can’t get y’all to just discuss the concepts. YECers, tell me your views on my question about geocentrism. I’m here to learn. Educate me.
1 Like
I worship God throughout every day. It’s my joy and passion. I go to church on Sundays because that’s when the church holds services.
1 Like
Oh man…honestly?
If you read it properly you would see that I am defending how you reason not what you reason.
You can read?
I am beginning to doubt your comprehension abilities (which would explain a great deal)
Ia m not claiming I am right. I am not even claiming you are wrong. If you comprehended my posts you would see that I am arguing agiainst such judgementalism.
Still, I guess you are so used to confrontation that you just assume.
Read it again, as follows
That is the common view her but not mine
That is me defending your right to view the Bible aas you see fit and draw conclusions from that view
Nowhere have i said anything about right and wrong.
The Yes, is the general view, not mine!
That would appear to apply to you as wel
That would also appear to apply to you as well
Richard
Meaning it is not the same thing at all. One is YEC fabrication and the other is science supported by rigor and measurement. The rate of movement cannot be disregarded. For YEC the energy involved for propulsion is not available to begin with, and if it were the heat which would be generated would melt the Earth.
How long things take is material to science. The proportionality of force to mass and change in position over time, and the relation of friction to velocity, means that time is intrinsic to physics in general and tectonic drift in particular.
The extensive Hawaiian islands - Emporer Seamount chain of hot spot volcanic formations are compelling evidence for the consistency of tectonic drift, with complimentary results for the progressive sequence of observed erosion, matching radiometric dating, and paleomagnetic orientations. There is no “same scientific reasons” which account for evidence such as the Hawaii hot spot, the Louisville Ridge, or similarly the Galapagos chain.
See Joel Duff articles…
The Appearance of Age and the Origin of the Hawaiian Islands
Smoking Gun Evidence of an Ancient Earth: GPS Data Confirms Radiometric Dating
3 Likes
I have presented YEC views all over these forums. I reference dozens, if not hundreds of bible texts thst align harmoniously with the science of YEC…this is important because one cannot adhere to a philosophical position without referenced support from within that world views writings and outside of it.
When you study the biblical genealogy model, you will readily find that it has historical support and accuracy. Dates, times, places all support the existence of an overwelming number of biblical historical claims in the narrative timeline.
Heres a dilemma for those who doubt the Exodus and presence of jews in Egypt and later, the Sinai desert. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah…how could we possibly know this if the writer of the book of Exodus never existed (Moses). Moses is the first author of the bible…He recorded the previous history upon which an entire narrative is constructed. If Moses was a fairytale, Christs reason for being here is nonsense…Christians are delusional naive idiots.
We know Christians arent delusional idiots because history supports the bible narrative…one classic example was the biblical group called the Hittites. There were a lot of red faced naysayers when the Hittite capital Hattusa was discovered in 1886 by Georges Parrot
Increasingly, YEC science is finding evidences that align with the biblical narrative…exactly as its written without twisting and reinterpreting it. Theres the really significant thing…YEC dont need to play word games in order to harmonize the two…it just fits natively.
If you want to know the YEC scientific view, you need to stop listening to naysayers presenting third hand absolutes (because they do not read the stuff they are referring to either) go and read them for yourself with an open bible beside you. When you do that you will understand the why.
Edit
I have ignored your geocemtrism part of the post because its not only false, its not relevant to the dilemma or solution…its straw plucking.
Well, this forum was a waste of time for me. I only joined a week ago and thought maybe there would be some interesting dialogue, but just about everything I posted got ripped. Few gave me the benefit of the doubt or treated my questions as sincere. By and large the posters are immature, driven by their emotions. As for any of you who call yourself a Christian, I haven’t seen much of the fruit of the Spirit or anything resembling humility. So, goodbye.
2 Likes
So says the guy who has said:
Continuing the discussion from Why attend church?:
1 Like
Relevance???
Im sick of individuals playing games…if the majority here remain focused on throwing mud at people when theological solutions are presented for which you have no answers then, cry wolf as a distraction…how can anyone learn from that.
What we get is a forum founder comosing a song stating life in the world evolved into existence. There is not a bible passage anywhere that claims or supports such theological tripe…but there are plenty of bible references about an intelligent all powerful God creating us male and female…on day 6 of creation week.
I would.l suggest the gospel is not teaching individuals theories thst are not biblical. Contrary to the opinion here, corruption in nature is not going to teach one anything about God other than he exists. You wont find out about atonement and salvation is the rings of a tree. A tree cannot explain to you the purpose of the death of Christ on the cross. What we see in the environment about us is suffeeing and death…because we know nothing different, that is normal for us…the bible however presents the theology that its most definately not normal…its not what God originally created.
We can either follow the theological evidence to appreciate why for Christians its important to have sound theology or watch mindless television and not bother with religion or science.
This question starts out with an assumption thats not only absurd, its stupid. These so.called practical problems are only problems for individuals here in the world of evolution…they arent an issue for anyone else. If these forums actually presented a fair balance of the true issues, these discussions would be more civil. Ive encountered some of the worse biblocal understanding ever from TEism…their theology is hopelessly inconsistent and indeed very often not even biblical (resorting to moral reasoning “God wouldnt lie to us”)
Just one comment. Take it or leave it.
Have you ever considered that there might be other views on what Scripture says and even how to read and understand it?
Richard
1 Like
i dont reference views…i reference what the bible says and i can be sure of the correct interpretation by cross referencing with a range of other bible texts and bible writers. thats the point. If we reference interpretation, or just take meaning from one text that is clearly inconsistent with other texts and general bible theology, that means we are making up theology and doctrine to suit ourselves.
Of course, you must have the rigt way to read and understand Scripture. There can be no doubts
^Every one is out of step except our Jimmy!"
Have you ever watched a big parade? Each section keeps its own time. But the parade is still complete.
Richard
Sorry, but I’ve known a good number of people who didn’t believe in evolution but still saw the problems with YEC because the rocks of the plant Earth tell that they are extremely old. There is no avoiding the fact that either the Himalayas are at a bare minimum hundreds of thousands of years old, and the same is true of every single uplifted mountain range. That doesn’t depend on any assumptions, it depends only on measurements made in the laboratory.
So the question of how YEC gets around plain fact is a good one.
2 Likes
Which is why I despise it: YEC has no respect for the text.
Well, that and the fact that it drives people from Christ.
A worthy point! one I’m not sure I’ve considered before.
To me this is asking which is grander, that God designed a system where the simple could become more complex and result in an ever-unfolding variety of life and beauty, or where He sat down like a little kid with a critter-maker and played at making toy animals?
The grandeur of evolution is that it is a system more subtle and brilliant than anything humans have ever conceived.
Doesn’t work? That doesn’t address the O.P. at all.
But there are lots of human inventions with useless and pointless embellishments that later turned out to have functions that the people who built them didn’t even conceive.
Except to get the YEC “explanation” it is necessary to ignore thermodynamics and other physics, or invoke useless miracles, and to ascribe to God fickleness and unfaithfulness.
And I have yet to find one that doesn’t require lying about the data.
I’ve done the reading, and I got tired of the lies, lies, lies, so I don’t read AiG any more – I will not give any respect to a group that so despises the Word of God. They are what the OT warns against, prophets who lie to the people.
That’s not what the statement affirms: it says it’s fine to ignore the evidence.
It also lies because AiG throws the historical grammatical-method in the trash.
You just redefine the genre to make it fit a MSWV instead of letting it be what it is.
That ends up being like the kid who does a jigsaw puzzle with a hammer, pounding at pieces until they fit instead of finding how they really go together.
No, it proves that YEC engages in “straw plucking” – they decide what to take literally and what not to, without any rational basis behind it.
1 Like
AiG and other YEC’s are ignoring the evidence, and they even say as much in their statement of faith.
2 Likes
This is your inbuilt excuse to ignore the evidence. If something seems contrary to YEC it is explained away as coming from a corrupt creation.
The correlation between radiometric dates and observed tectonic rates of motion needs explaining.
The radiometric dates for those islands and seamounts predicts an 8.6 cm/year movement of the Earth’s crust over the Hawaiian hotspot. That’s exactly what we observe for the motion of that plate. How do you explain this correlation? Where is the YEC science that deals with this evidence?
3 Likes
And that is a crime because?
What right have you to impose science onto them?
The right of truth? (That assues that you have it. Are you that certain?)
I will ask you what I asked Merv.
Do you understand the difference betwen Tollerance and Accpetance?
You do not even show tollerance.
Richard
I never said it was a crime.
I’m not imposing science on anyone. People are free to ignore science if they so choose. What I will do is hold others to their own criteria when they claim they have scientific support for their beliefs as is the case for many YECs.
YECs are the ones claiming they are doing science, so we are just holding them to the standards they claim they are following.
How do I not show tolerance? Because I refuse to accept beliefs?
2 Likes