Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   This settles it.. Never moving down south..
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 116 (19586)
10-10-2002 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by RedVento
10-10-2002 11:38 AM


RV
My personal Christian experience makes it unlikely I will disown literal creation. I personally think the data is too murky. I just don't know what would happen if the data pointed incredibly clearly to evoltuion. All I can say is what I believe now. And all I am doing on this web site is explaining why I believe the data points to creation at the gross level and can be interpreted in detail that way as well. I clainm no proof. The real reason I believe in creation is becasue of my Christian experince and almost any creaitonist will tell you that. The data itself can be interpreted either way with approximately the same success.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RedVento, posted 10-10-2002 11:38 AM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 10:06 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 91 by Joe Meert, posted 10-11-2002 2:18 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 95 by RedVento, posted 10-11-2002 1:31 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 116 (19587)
10-10-2002 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Mammuthus
10-10-2002 9:47 AM


Mammuthus
I admitt I did not beleive through science. But having beleived I can see that the science does point to creation.
What about others? I know several creationist who claim to have come through science and others through Biblical archeology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Mammuthus, posted 10-10-2002 9:47 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 10:10 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 116 (19599)
10-11-2002 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by nos482
10-10-2002 10:10 PM


Nos
It sounds like you better start showing us what this pseudo-science is that we use.
A hint before you do - don't mix up the scientific evidence with the potential creative cause uncovered by the evidence or even the miraculous nature of the hypothesis being tested by scientific observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 10:10 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by nos482, posted 10-11-2002 7:46 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 116 (19610)
10-11-2002 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Joe Meert
10-11-2002 2:18 AM


^ I will admitt that we are claiming a conspiracy theory of a sort Joe. The scriptures tell us in black and white, in the context of creation and he flood that:
quote:
They will say . . . everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 2 Pet 3:4-7
So yes, mainstream science has deliberately turned its back on the proclamaiton of scripture. And those who did it were in the context of an openly Christian society.
At the end of the day it is a spiritual conspiracy but it has physical ramifiations. the data can be interpreted either way and we are all free to choose. There is a narrow way and a broad way.
PS I do love the humour of your post. The idea of Exon coming and wanting to recruit from people with PhDs in YEC is highly amusing. Or a YEC section at a geo confernce. I wonder how Austin introduces himself? 'I do global flood geology' must go down like a lead balloon. YECism as a mainstream concept is funny in the context of secular society. Although I can laugh at this the present situation saddens me for obvious reasons.
I am a realist but at the same time I am utterly convinced that God would tell you that that geo-column got there by the flood and 'I don't care that you thought the data pointed in a different direction'.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Joe Meert, posted 10-11-2002 2:18 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by nos482, posted 10-11-2002 7:50 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 98 by nator, posted 10-13-2002 8:37 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 116 (19756)
10-13-2002 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by nos482
10-11-2002 7:46 AM


nos
Your post contsains no hint of pseudo science from us - just that you are prepared to state things that you can't back up. I hate pseudo science so I can gaurentee that we don't do it! If I see a hint of it in a creationist, I, like TC for example, direct them to the data and tell them to stop arguing against data. For years I told creaitonoists that the rocks demonstrate vast amounts of radiodecay for example. This arguing against data has largely been exorcised from the creaitonist community.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nos482, posted 10-11-2002 7:46 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by nos482, posted 10-13-2002 8:42 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 116 (19757)
10-13-2002 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by RedVento
10-11-2002 1:31 PM


RV
Given my bias I still think the data points about equally at both options. So therefore it should be in the curicullum. It does not have to be religiously dictated. Anyone from anywhere would tell you that life is an amazing phenomenon and has two obvious possibilities of origin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by RedVento, posted 10-11-2002 1:31 PM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by RedVento, posted 10-14-2002 10:09 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 116 (19820)
10-14-2002 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by nator
10-13-2002 8:37 AM


Schraf
I believe the data is roughly split evenly on the issue. God allowed it to be ambiguous so that we would have to have faith. If that is conspiracy then, well, it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by nator, posted 10-13-2002 8:37 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by nos482, posted 10-14-2002 8:21 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 110 by derwood, posted 10-24-2002 1:18 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 116 (19821)
10-14-2002 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by nos482
10-13-2002 8:42 AM


Nos
I'm a YEC.
My paragraph on creationists includes me talking to myself (and hearing from others too)! But I will distinguish myself from some YECs who pretend that radioactive decay hasn't occurred or that mammal-like reptiles don't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by nos482, posted 10-13-2002 8:42 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by nos482, posted 10-14-2002 8:23 AM Tranquility Base 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