Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology

I'm sorry, Faith, but I really don't see how you could possibly have defended evolution "and the works" when it's clear you don't know much about mainstream science. You are an extremely articulate person, no doubt about it, but the knowledge you think you have regarding mainstream science is nothing more than delusional. I don't think I've met anyone more proud of their intellect than you.I've spent nearly 20 years as a geologist with a specialty in ore deposits, and I would never presume to think I know more than petrophysics about oil and gas (I am assuming that is his/her specialty based on the alias). Or any other geologist with a different specialty than myself, much less something completely outside my field. And yet you sit there and lecture us on geology. A rational person just does not do that.

Like the good doctor, I can't even see the point in denying the firmly established findings of any natural science. Why don't these creationists just say it's a miracle instead of trying to rebuke science through ignorance of science? It seems their hatred of logic outweighs any belief God is omnipotent and can make miracles occur.It would certainly be a more...ahem...rational course. I just have a degree in geological engineering I have never used beyond highgrading a few rare minerals as a hobby, so my input on this subject is worth far less than yours or petrophysics.But unlike some people, we both know that.

quote:

---

A true Christian is a "Bible believer" who knows that it is ALL God's word.

---

Where does the Bible say that a "true Christian" "knows" that ? Especially as the Bible doesn't even SAY that it's all God's word.Personally I take the view that anyone who thinks that believing in the literal truth of Genesis 1 is more important than following the teachings of Jesus has no special claim to be a "true Christian" - or even a "Bible believer".

It may seem that I claim to know more than people who work in the field, but I think you are misreading my absolute certainty that old earth explanations are wrong because the Bible says so, as thinking I know more about the science itself. No, I simply reject all old earth claims flat out and enjoy thinking about young earth alternatives, for which I have had to read up on various aspects of geology, not the same thing as claiming expertise it seems to me.And again, most of the stuff I come up with usually agrees with the creationist ministries anyway, and I do stupidly think that because their thinking is very good in my opinion, that someone here might consider it seriously. But I haven't noticed that they get any better treatment from anyone here than I do. So once again it's time to give up instead of continuing to entertain such an impossibility. So I'll take it all back to my blog. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I guess I stupidly think that since I'm a Christian who has a pretty good background in church history that if I say a true Christian is a "Bible believer" you ought to take it seriously and consider yourself informed of something new if it is new to you. It's what ALL Christians I consider to be Christians down through history consider themselves to be and each other to be. But believe whatever you want, far be it from me to try to change anyone's mind here. I give up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I guess I stupidly think that since I'm a Christian who has a pretty good background in church history that if I say a true Christian is a "Bible believer" you ought to take it seriously

---

Even if your knowledge was not tainted by prejudice - yours and your sources - I don't see that Church history could possibly determine who was and was not a "true Christian". Indeed I cannot think of a better criterion than following the teachings of Jesus.

quote:

---

It's what ALL Christians I consider to be Christians down through history consider themselves and each other to be.

---

In other words it's your own opinion - since you get to decide who you consider to be a Christian. Although I rather doubt that Peter or James would have considered Paul's Epistles to be entirely the Word of God - in fact I don't even think that Paul himself would have made that claim.

What is worse is that I consider myself still to be a bible believer. Faith thinks because I don't take Genesis literally, that I don't believe the bible.???????? There is a disconnect somewhere. Does faith believe there is a solid dome covering the earth in which the birds fly and the stars are held in place? Does she believe there are four corners to the earth? If she doesn't, then she isn't a true bible believer by her own standard of judgement.

Ooh, ooh, I know how. Extremely badly. Just because we are accustomed to defending science with actual facts doesn't mean that Faith couldn't have stood up for it with her characteristic blend of ignorance, arrogance, and incompetence. There is after all nothing so true that one can't find a bad reason for believing it.

The classic avoidance tactic of the CCoI. When it is impossible to defend one's position simply avoid the truth.

This is the kind of post I like to nominate, but I'm going to avoid annoying the Moose by doing that. Instead I'll just provide my own translation from Faith-speak:"I copied off of my buddy's paper, whom I knowing nothing deemed to be smart. Yet we both got F's! How is that fair?"ABE:Seriously, isn't ripping into 'Creation Science' as found on sites like AIG's and CMI a favorite past time of most of the posters here. Why would an old timer expect that posting stuff that agrees with those guys would earn respect? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Added by edit.

I've noticed this trope. A person with an erronious opinion tries to argue their case with others. They can't find any support for the ideas and, in fact, the ideas are shot down in flames very quickly. Rather than admiitting their error or finding more evidence to support the claim, the poster retires to their blog to shout into the widerness.Preaching is so much easier than two way debate.

Aren't you in a good place to answer this? Weren't you a YEC until fairly recently? Perhaps you can help us understand the delusion.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

OK I'll try. First, there most definitely is a delusion.2 Thess 2:8-12-- The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. NIVTo some, truth is knowledge. To others truth is Jesus Christ.

quote:

---

It may seem that I claim to know more than people who work in the field, but I think you are misreading my absolute certainty that old earth explanations are wrong because the Bible says so, as thinking I know more about the science itself. No, I simply reject all old earth claims flat out and enjoy thinking about young earth alternatives, for which I have had to read up on various aspects of geology, not the same thing as claiming expertise it seems to me.

---

I'd say that your certainty that virtually all the experts - in fact all those who are not strongly biased in favour of a Young Earth view are "blinded by prejudice" is arrogant, and itself based more on prejudice. And that's only one of the double standards in your arguments.

quote:

---

And again, most of the stuff I come up with usually agrees with the creationist ministries anyway, and I do stupidly think that because their thinking is very good in my opinion, that someone here might consider it seriously

---

And yet, when I show that their thinking is not good you just get angry and refuse to discuss the issue. And it's not as if I treat their arguments any less seriously than you treat Old Earth arguments either...I even get jeered for suggesting that if we are to judge people as being "true Christians" we should see if they follow the teachings of Jesus!

quote:

---

But I haven't noticed that they get any better treatment from anyone here than I do

---

Lets say that your treatment of others is hardly beyond reproach.

I was never extreme as faith is. YEC was not a cornerstone of Christianity to me. I did defend the literal view of Genesis for most of my life though. I could not see any reason not to interpret it literally. Trying to make it fit with modern science seemed like compromise and cowardice to me. But I had a disdain toward modern science when it came to subjects like darwinian evolution and man made global warming. I eventually realized that just because one area of science was corrupt did not mean the others were corrupt as well. I am still not convinced that human emitted carbon dioxide is warming the planet. That is because the evidence does not back it up. However, I am convinced that the earth is very old. That is because the evidence DOES back it up.When there is no possible way to reconcile a young earth made in six days with cold hard evidence, you have no choice but to accept the option that perhaps Genesis is not literal. The big hurdle to jump though is that just because it is not literal, does not mean it isn't true. The trick is trying to find out just what it does say. Genesis is telling a creation story to an ancient , mythology driven people. We know how earth, and the stars and life got to be the way it appears to today. How would God direct a hebrew born, egyptian prince 4000 years ago, to communicate that creation story to a illiterate people who were expected to relay that story to the polytheistic nations around it? I know one thing for certain. He would not use modern english language that is immersed in modern western civilization culture and loaded with scientific terms and with scientific accuracy. To expect that kind of thing is sheer lunacy.Faith and others like I used to be, were taught that the literal view is the only way possible to interpret Genesis. It was implied that it was compromising and maybe even evil to interpret it otherwise. You grow up trusting these people who tell you these things. The thing is that these people THINK they are telling you the truth. The error in thinking is just simply passed from one person to the next and from one generation to the next, and nobody dares to think about it critically because that would show a lack of faith on their part.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add a couple of blank lines.