The gentic inheritance of sin - if it is true what are the consequences?

quote:

---

I don't care whether you take it seriously as long as it is seen for what it is and recognized as unanswerable by evolutionist science. Beyond that I would rather avoid the usual insults based on my not seeing things the way evolutionists do

---

So basically it's a bunch of ad hoc excuses invented to deny scientific investigation - because the evidence is so strongly against your beliefs that outright rejection is your only hope. And you're happy for people to know that.hEdited by AdminJar, : fix unbalanced quote code

Basically it is ad hoc or logically developed explanations based on what the Bible says.The evidence, as I said, is not evidence. It doesn't even address the relevant questions. It is purely a construct of evolutionist presuppositions and therefore irrelevant to what I'm saying. It assumes a completely different history, a completely different universe. Yes I've finally decided there's no point in playing the evolutionist game. It's not of any interest to me. The arguments are rude and nasty and the whole thing not worth anybody's time.

Te other thread is for details, so I'll just make these comments:Simply asserting that the evidence isn't evidence doesn't make it so. Labelling conclusions assumptions does not make it so. The "evolutionist" scenario is firmly supported by the empirical evidence and the YEC scenario is strongly contradicted by the empirical evidence. Those are the facts.

That's just your faith. How can it be evidence if it assumes evolution when evolution didn't happen, and what's needed is a completely different mental set if evidence is going to be collected? It isn't evidence. It's all speculation based on assumptions and accepted on faith.

Well, you are dismissing a staggering accumulation of studies by claiming the carefull documentation, measurement, preservation, experimental data etc. is not evidence and the unsupported statements of theologians and preachers etc. is.I'm not insulting you but I am stating that I can't take a religion seriously that doesn't seriously deal with actual hard evidence. You can of course choose to believe what you want but imagining how the world was supposed to be based on ancient pre scientific myth, though your perogative, is not something I can take seriously. You have not carefully considered or addressed the actual data that the scientists have worked with. You are dismissing it without understanding it. I find that totally unconvincing.lfen

Oh they are well supported, but not by the standards of science.The method here is to put what is called "evidence" over against what some of us KNOW to be revelation from God. Fine, our supernatural revelation doesn't impress you; your evidence doesn't impress us either -- BECAUSE it challenges God's revelation. Where it doesn't challenge God, we take evidence as being given BY God.You choose denigrating language to describe our point of view, which is an unfair tactic called poisoning the well and standard for the evolutionists here, such as the phrase "ancient pre-scientific myth." That's just YOUR belief, totally subjective on your part. You like it, and I can say back to you just as you say to me, though it is your prerogative, it is not something I can take seriously. No, you dismiss my point of view on the basis of your own prejudice against an "ancient pre-scientific myth," not on my attitude to science. What doesn't occur to you is that there might be excellent reason not to consider or address the data. That is just out of the question for the science-minded.But at whatever point science purports to tell me that the Bible is wrong (and that is always at the point of evolutionist assumptions, nowhere else) I know science is wrong, because I knowthat the Bible is God's own revelation.This is a very good reason not to give science a shot, the very best, the recognition that God is real and the Bible is divinely guided truth and that science is only the fallible work of fallible humanity. But you don't recognize that. Science, fallible human intellect, is your standard, not the Bible, and you judge me and the Bible by its presuppositions. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If you believe God created the universe and everything in it then why isn't that creation something to be considered and studied?For all your claims about the Bible you have only fallible human claims by yourself and others that it is the inerrant word of God. God hasn't broadcast his endorsement of it. Only people have claimed it to be so.lfen

It is. Science is a noble occupation. EXCEPT where it has the hubris to disagree with the God who made the nature it studies and has given us His revelation to test ourselves by, then we know it is fallible humanity ignoring God, and it is no longer respectful of God or His creation. The problem is that you simply will not step outside your own presuppositions and see that science is NOT the final arbiter of all things. Always measuring it by scientific standards. Such a statement denies the entire history within the Bible and of its transmission and acceptance by the millions through the centuries. But let me concede the point and say that "only people" testify to its supernatural character {edit: supernatural inspiration} and claim personal experiences that confirm their sense of certainty. What then? I believe them all, and know it to be true from my own experiences too. It disagrees with science. You choose science, I choose the Biblical revelation. Six of one, half a dozen of the other at the very least. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It doesn't disagree with what God created. It's measured the amount of radioactive isotopes left after decay. It's measured the distance to the stars, the speed of light, etc. It's had the hubris to disagree with pre scientific theories and with those contemporary people who interpret the Bible in a particular way that yields claims that are testable and falsifiable such as the age of the earth. They don't want it to be as it is but rather something simpler that goes with their fancy. God did it the way it is, not the way humans want it to be.YEC has been falsified so maybe current HUMAN authorities that you are relying upon need to be examined as to why they are misrepresenting God's work. Those religionists are the ones demonstrating hubris as they are telling God how he should have made the universe.lfen

quote:

---

That's just your faith.

---

No, those are the facts.

quote:

---

How can it be evidence if it assumes evolution when evolution didn't happen

---

Because evolution is not assumed. The dating evidence, for instance is independent of evolution. Evolution itslef is a conclusion rather than an assumption.

quote:

---

...what's needed is a completely different mental set if evidence is going to be collected?

---

It isn't needed. You don't need any particular mindset to collect fossils, for instance. You are confusing the evidence with the interpretation. We have evidence supporting the conclusion that trilobites long predated man. We have evidence supporting the conclusion that predators attacked trilobites. Neither of these conclusions assumes evolution.

quote:

---

It isn't evidence. It's all speculation based on assumptions and accepted on faith.

---

If you really want to retreat to solipsism then be my guest. But that is what you're doing here.

Evidence cannot be valid evidence if it contradicts God. It has to be rethought.

quote:

---

Evidence cannot be valid evidence if it contradicts God. It has to be rethought

---

i.e. if the evidence supports conclusions you don't like we shoudl pretend it doesn't exist. Whether those conclusions contradict God or not is a different question - and one where your view is supported more by faith then evidence.{added in edit}
So here's a simple question. Does the fossil described here exist or not ? If you say it doesn't then why ?Edited by PaulK, : Add example of evidence that "doesn't exist"

You do not have the authority to tell me that I am wrong about it contradicting God. It contradicts God.Why on earth would I doubt the existence of a fossil if someone has found such a thing? Silly question.Oh because it's a predator? Why would I doubt that? I only say that there were no predators in EDEN, but said quite clearly that they subsequently developed. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're experience here and elsewhere you might lead you to agree that it is in a post-modern age we live. A feature of that philosophical system is neatly captured by the phrase "whatever you feel is right for you is fine". If large numbers of people holding that philosophy are able to (independantly yet inter-dependently; as if acting as one) decide that whatever moral code they see fit to apply to themselves is the way they want it to be - and this patently contradicts Gods moral code, should you suppose that people, en masse, are not able to construct science in a way that does the same kind of thing?

quote:

---

You do not have the authority to tell me that I am wrong about it contradicting God. It contradicts God.

---

What is in question is your authority to say that it DOES contradict God.

quote:

---

Why on earth would I doubt the existence of a fossil if someone has found such a thing? Silly question.

---

Because it is evidence of a predator attacking trilobites. You kept asserting that the evidence didn't exist. So the question was necessary to see if you really meant what you were saying.And of course the evidence of age exists, too. You can insist that dating methods don't work but they, too, are based on the evidence.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.