Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Both or neither.
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 134 (81691)
01-30-2004 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by TruthDetector
01-29-2004 10:49 PM


quote:
I have read several threads mentioning lyes and so on, God trying to make us think the earth is older, make us think evolution happened ect, but I honestly don't see where there are coming from... Please be more specific on "lying to us".
I won't call them lies (you make soap with lyes, ), but some can be considered misleading. For instance, galaxies millions of light years away are visible here on Earth. Why is that? Did God create this light in transit to make the universe look old? On top of this, we can observe atomic half lives by measuring the light coming from very, very distant stars which seems to discount the creationist theory of accelerated half-lives. Why is that? Did God do this so that we would have more confidence in half-lives that are actually wrong?
If in fact we are here because of the grace of God, then we have to understand what he gave us, namely intelligence and logic. For us to ignore what he gave us is ignoring God. If in fact we are living in his creation, he has set it up so we will know how he created and when he created, both by the evidence that is in creation and by the intelligence and logic that he bestowed on us.
Ironically, Creationism ignores the signs in creation and instead relies upon texts that could very easily be allegoric/metaphoric. In fact, rabbis in the past have said just as much, that the creation account in Genesis should not necessarily be taken literally, that the creation of the universe could have taken billions of years. This can be found in the thread dealing with Nachminades (too lazy to do a search right now). So, if even the culture that held and wrote the text in Genesis claims that the Genesis account should not necessarily be taken literally, what does this tell you? And don't forget that this was in the 13th century, well before Darwin was born or before evidence of an old earth was popularized.
[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-30-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by TruthDetector, posted 01-29-2004 10:49 PM TruthDetector has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by TruthDetector, posted 02-04-2004 8:09 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024