Where are the young earthers?

quote:

---

I personally stay away from dating debates because I am not knowledgeable enough (to my fault) to argue why I believe what I do. I believe that there is evidence out there that contradicts evolution, but I'm not versed in it, and this isn't the thread for it.

---

If I came on a thread and claimed that I know there exists evidence that proves the sun orbits the earth, would you believe me? Not only this, but to back up my claim I declare ignorance. I know the sun orbits the earth, but my astronomy isn't the greatest. Kind of getting the picture?If you feel intimidated, don't. What you should do is ask questions and offer support in a manner that reflects your current state of knowledge. Everyone on this board at one time in their life had no knowledge of science whatsoever. Some of us have studied science more than others and actually like talking about science, especially with people who are not knowledgable about a certain aspect of science. So, ask questions that you think are important and be ready to look at ALL the evidence, both confirming and challenging what you already believe. If we had left it to biblical scholars, we would still believe that the sun orbits the earth. It was scientists that looked at the evidence, and the evidence alone, that lead to the theory of earth orbiting the sun.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-05-2004]

This is a misquote. I did not say that the pope is not Christian only because he believes in evolution. I said he is not a Christian because he believes there is more than one way to get to heaven. You mean why do people believe what fallible man says about God than what infallible God says about Himself? I don't know - you'd need to ask those people why they believe that. As for me, when I read the Bible I see that there is only one way to heaven - Jesus. And the reason that Jesus died on the cross is because of sin. Sin is the reason that there is death in the world. But if you believe evolution or even OEC, then you have death before sin, thus undermining the cross. Christ's work is the most substantial thing that has ever happened in human history. However, there was a very specific reason why He had to do it. You can't just throw in any ol' reason and say it's ok because of the cross.

Fair enough. I'm sure he can. But, mind you, those verses will probably either be from the Catholic bible, much of which is not Scripture, or they'll be taken out of context of the rest of the Bible. If the pope has some evidence from the "real" (for lack of a better word) Bible that belief in a way to heaven other than Christ is acceptable, then I believe I could show him to be wrong - though I doubt the pope would ever take me up on that! I think the catholic church is an organization (and a very convincing one at that) that tells people to follow a bunch of religious rules and do a bunch of good works in order to go to heaven. If that makes it a con game, then so be it. What the catholic church teaches is fundementally opposed to what the message of Christ is, even though they claim to be preaching God's Word. They preach a salvation that is totally based on works (as do all other religions, by the way). Christianity preaches that salvation is a gift of God, through faith, not works.

Funkman,I'm talking about science here, and you're talking about religion. I still have no idea why you think evolution undermines Christ's work, and I think it's beside the point. Science has a pretty cozy consensus that the Earth is billions of years old, that life forms have lived and died on Earth for billions of years. If you have another scientific explanation for all the evidence people have used to infer an old Earth, let's hear it.When I read something like Finding Darwin's God by scientist and Christian Kenneth Miller, I find it hard to accept that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. Not being a believer, I honestly don't care whether religious people accept the validity of evolution or not. However, I'm aware of too many believers who are also evolutionists to accept your assertion that the two are irreconcilable.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Perhaps my statements are a bit harsh, but I believe they are the truth as set forth in the Bible. I want to be clear that I do not think someone is not saved just on the basis of believing evolution. However, I do think that believing evolution does lend itself towards believing in alternate ways of becoming saved - and this is what makes someone not saved. I know there are plenty of people out there who can reconcile the Bible with evolution, but in doing so they are making compromises somewhere, whether it be on the religious side or the science side. I personally do not believe that evolution and the Bible can be reconciled. And while I do not have all the scientific evidence to back it up, I do know that the Bible is the Word of God and it has never been proven wrong. And I'm better off believing the Word of infallible God as opposed to fallible man.

There are so many things in the Bible that have been proven wrong that for you to say that is bearing false witness.Pi=3 anyone?

Funkman,Do you think that your views on salvation may influence how you look at the theory of evolution? That is, are you rejecting evolution on purely scientific grounds or because it clashes with your personal theology? I am not asking this out of spite or to trick you, but more out of curiosity. I promise that I am asking these questions for honest reasons and was wondering if you thought the theological implications of evolution outweigh the scientific evidence that support the theory.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-06-2004]

A curious point of view to my mind. In the (my tongue in cheek) evolution of religion, Christianity was a 'speciation' event differentiating it from the ancestral Judaism (a Judai christiani if you will), followed by 'speciation' of Islam (and Mormonism? or is this still in process?). This took some 300 years to complete if one can judge from the information available.Within the species Judai christiani several varieties have since evolved, such as Judai christiani protestani and Judai christiani evangelicai, but the variety closest to the ancestral Judai christiani stock would be the variety Judai christiani catholici ... {with the initial division rising towards genus level as the varieties develop into different species}The point being that all Christianity is derived from Catholicism ... without any addition of "new information" ... so the idea that the Catholic information is incomplete is? This is different from any formalized religion how? How does the supposed rule "only through Christ" not fall into this category as well?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

I personally do not believe that evolution and the Bible can be reconciled.

---

And I never said it could. I only said that there are countless believers who accept Darwin's theory as the explanation for biological diversity on Earth. Since evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory, I assume these believers base their acceptance of it on the scientific evidence just like the rest of us. Apparently your interpretation of the Bible is not the only one.I repeat my admiration for biologist Kenneth R. Miller, and I recommend his book to anyone interested in the common ground between religion and science.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Eta Carinae, The bible does have an example supporting 3.14 is pi, meaning of course its talking about the inside of the vessel, the thickness was a handsbreath thick, so the outside circumference of the vessel would still of been 31.4 cubits, though the entire measurement of height would of been 5 cubits, showing the entire verse is not in conflict with pi, unless your assuming 5 cubits was the height of the inside of the vessel, but the verse doesn't support this assertion, the vessel was 5 cubits high, if you looking at it sitting on top of the pillar, it had to give the 5 cubit measure, so you knew how deep to dig the molding, and to have the inside measurement of the molding, so you have all the measurements necessary to make the molding, etc...P.S. It appears though that the height of the inside of the vessel was 5 cubits minus the handswidth thickness, up to the top of the brim, which supports when the vessel was full to the bottom of the brim, it contained 2,000 bath waters, and when it was filled to top of the brim to overflowing, it contained 3,000 bath waters, etc...kjv 1Ki 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.kjv 1Ki 7:26 And it [was] an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-06-2004]

quote:

---

The bible does have an example supporting 3.14 is pi, meaning of course its talking about the inside of the vessel, the thickness was a handsbreath thick, so the outside of the vessel . . .

---

My belief is that they just rounded off the number, which is a normal human tendency. Imagine saying that the vessel was 10 cubits in diameter and 31.4 cubits around. Are there numbers with decimals anywhere in the Bible? For me, 30 cubits is good enough since having an accurate account of the circumference of a vessel has nothing to do with the theology of the Bible. Of course, using creationist math and logic I could claim that pi was different in the past and make up an ad hoc hypothesis to prove it.

Good point, they kept the measurements without decimal points, 10 cubits would of been the outside dimensions, and the inside circumference would of been 30 cubits, though we can calculate what the inside diameter would of been, it was 9.55 cubits, the bible interestingly is actually supporting pi, because the measurements don't conflict, etc...P.S. 9.55 divided by 2 = 4.777 cubits high, the inside of the vessel, minus the height of the brim, to account for the 2,000 bath waters, and to the top of the brim to account for the 3,000 bath waters, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-06-2004]

I'd be interested to know how you come to this conclusion. As I see it, Christianity is a direct follow-up to Judaism. Judaism was based on belief and faith in God, as is Christianity. Granted, there is much more as far as law and sacrifice given to the OT believers, but the point of all all of that was to point forward to Christ. Since Christ has come, we as believers are now under grace, not law. The OT Judaic religion pointed forward to Christ. The NT Christian religion points back to Christ - in essence they are the same. That is not to say that those who today practice OT Judaism are following the same beliefs as Christians. However, the true message of both those religions is Christ. The idea that Catholicism came before Christianity doesn't make sense to me. Isn't Peter the father of the Catholic faith? But Peter was a follower of Christ, the "father of Christianity." Seems to me that Christianity came first. All formalized relgions, except Christianity, require good works to get to heaven. "Only through Christ" doesn't fall into this category because it isi not a work - it is faith.Getting back to the main question of this thread (where are all the young earthers?), I would point you to the following article:
Creation: Where’s the Proof? | Answers in Genesis
This article explains very nicely why young earthers tend to tackle the issues of faith and inerrancy rather than the hardcore scientific topics. Faith and inerrancy are at the center of our beliefs, so we try to establish them first. If we go into a scientific debate guns-ablazin', evolutionists will undoubtedly throw out our evidence supporting the Bible because "the Bible is wrong anyway." Thus it makes no point to try to debate when the very foundation of our debate is discarded by the opponent.

Funkman,JonF has posted a challenge to this notion that "all the scientific data is there, it's just that Creationists merely interpret the facts differently.".Here he gives you a view of a meander in the Grand Canyon. How does a creationist interpret this evidence? Can it really be used in favor of the Biblical flood? Loudmouth also points out in this post that genetic data consistently support the predictions of evolutionary theory, but prove extremely problematic to a creationist one.It's tempting for creationists to believe that it's all a matter of perspective, but this view is untenable when all the data are taken into consideration.regards,
Esteban Hambre

H, can the facts seperate decent and mechanisms and still be facts? I have not seen a resolution in terms of energy conservation and quantity. Eldgridge knew that not having this Provine could not rightly have thought to write will thusly.