Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith and other YEC: why even bother taking part in the discussion?
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 31 of 141 (243340)
09-14-2005 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Brian
09-14-2005 12:55 PM


Re: What debate?
Brian writes:
Of course I do, but I don't humour these types any more. I just feel so sorry for them.
Must remember that line of defence next time someone asks me to back up my assertion that God exists. Is is uncommonly clever. The insertion of sorrow - an emotional state - into the equation is the killer punch. Like, if someone is in that deep emotional state on anothers behalf it just wouldn't be cricket to cause him even more discomfort. It'd be like kicking a puppy who rolled over on his back for you
I'll let you off. But only this once okay

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Brian, posted 09-14-2005 12:55 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Brian, posted 09-14-2005 1:52 PM iano has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 32 of 141 (243344)
09-14-2005 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by iano
09-14-2005 1:25 PM


Re: What debate?
I'll let you off. But only this once okay
Let me off what?
You mean you will excuse me for daring to come to my own conclusions about something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by iano, posted 09-14-2005 1:25 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by AdminJazzlover, posted 09-14-2005 5:09 PM Brian has replied

AdminJazzlover
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 141 (243417)
09-14-2005 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Brian
09-14-2005 1:52 PM


Re: What debate?
Brian writes:
Let me off what?
You mean you will excuse me for daring to come to my own conclusions about something?
Cmon Brian you know better that. He refers to the part where you said you had evidence of your claims when you said that Christians were lonely people and all that stuff. The point is that you said you had evidence but didnt cite it. Thats the same thing evo's constantly complain about with YEC assertions when they dont cite their evidence.
In general, I think this thread already served its purpose and unless the topic gets a twist that gives way to a fruitfull discussion Im gonna be taking care of buisness soon.
This message has been edited by AdminJazzlover, 09-14-2005 05:09 PM

"...science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Brian, posted 09-14-2005 1:52 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Brian, posted 09-15-2005 3:13 AM AdminJazzlover has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 34 of 141 (243446)
09-14-2005 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by iano
09-14-2005 10:43 AM


Uniformatism confusions
Okay, what tests or observations support uniformatism over the lifetime of the earth which don't rely on a prior presumption of uniformitism?
I'm compelled to make sure you understand what we mean by uniformatism. I believe that in its strictest definition it is the idea that changes in geology or eveolution are uniform over time, but in modern science it is more closer to the idea of actualism. Actualism is the idea that the process we see today are the same as the processes that will effect the future and the processes that had effected the past. Catastrophies have happened and will continue to happen. The rules of physics are the same today as they were billions of years ago. Any other conclusion would be irrational. As far as clues to this effect we point you to the following
: Glacial Ice cores, Ocean sediment cores, Changes in the seafloor due to changes in the magnetic field, dendrochronology. We don't have to presume uniformatism when we see the data. It cries it out. Why do you think that many great minds during the enlightenment, in their search for the turth of the bible, came to understand the old age of the earth?
Reliable science during which uniformitism could be measured is about 100 years old. The earth is supposedly 4,5 billion years old. The data for 'your' uniformitism is 1/45,000,000 of the total, ie: a single dot on a graph. On what objective basis do you base your extrapolation. You need some basis on which to stand before you can determine another basis to be false - surely?
This is patently false. Again we point to the following: Glacial Ice cores, Ocean sediment cores, Changes in the seafloor due to changes in the magnetic field, dendrochronology. Each of which holds data that is much older than 100 years!
Read it again. The assumption isn't hidden. It says x billion years ago and analyses the nuclear reaction times based on what precisely?
The analysis of nuclear reactions happened BEFORE they realized the age of the earth. Before the study of nuclear physics the age of the earth was estimated as being in the millions of years. The heat of nuclear reactions sent an epiphany through geologic circles. So your assumption of a presumption is false. The study of radioactive decay pointed to a much older earth than previously believed and NOT vice versa.
Logically, given powerful enough hind legs and a desire to do so, cows could jump over the moon. We aren't dealing logically here, we're dealing practically. The mechanisms described for evolution eg: rate of genetic mutation requires x amount of time to occur. If the world were younger you could say that genetic mutations occured more rapidly previously, but you would have no observational/scientific basis for saying so. That strand of 'evidence' would dissolve. Would it not?
And what logically follows is that since observations of the rates of evolution point to a slow process, the earth must be older than 6000 years.
Basically your whole argument is based on an irrational backward thinking. Prediction, explanation, observation. If the observation doesn't fit the prediction, change the observation to fit the prediction and therefore no testing of hypothesis's allowed. Individuals who presume to test hypothesis are claimed to be heretical or burned at the stake (not necessarily in that order.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by iano, posted 09-14-2005 10:43 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by iano, posted 09-15-2005 5:34 AM DBlevins has not replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 35 of 141 (243451)
09-14-2005 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
09-14-2005 12:39 PM


Re: Interpretation
Many things are considered to have been very different before the Fall than after, and even more so before the Flood than after, including particularly the climate, which is thought to have been very mild before the Flood. So for instance there is the idea that the (one) ice age began with the Flood -- the frozen giant animals being victims of the Flood as all other life forms were. So while the rings are now yearly markers, at some period in the past some other principle or time factor may explain them.
In a fair debate you should present your principle to explain the observations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 09-14-2005 12:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 09-14-2005 7:35 PM DBlevins has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 36 of 141 (243467)
09-14-2005 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by iano
09-14-2005 12:26 PM


Re: Why bother indeed?
iano writes:
Is space and time known absolutely to be linear as we understand it? Is it absolutely true that the earth goes around the sun or is it just that our current convention (or current common sense) indicates so? Just like common sense some centuries ago made people think the earth was flat...
It's a matter of perspective. Seen on a galactic scale (i.e. taking the movement of our galaxy with respect to other galaxies into account), the earth might seem to move on a rather erratic path, but when the movement of the solar system as a whole - and the larger systems containing it - is not taken into consideration, then it is definitely the case that the earth is revolving around the sun and not vice versa. There is no way you can devise a theory that accounts for the movements of all the bodies in our solar system which has the earth as the centre. The heliocentric view is absolutely the only way to correctly describe the movements within the solar system.
iano writes:
If I jumped from a high building I think I'd have other things on my mind than....SPLAAT!!
I told you, you'd have to be quick.
iano writes:
[...] I was under the impression that these formula are not absolutely correct in all circumstances. If not they are not absolute.
If the circumstances are the same, the outcome will be the same. That's why one speaks of "the law of gravity".
iano writes:
I can't see how science can comment on the effectiveness or otherwise of prayer. That would pre-suppose that objective/empirical is the only way to know - which is a philosophical position - not truth.
Science can perform a statistical analysis of the effect of both medicine and prayer on a patient. If it does, I predict the effect of prayer will be disappointing in comparison to that of medicine.
And be honest, if you were a diabetic, what would you rather have your doctor offer you: prayer or insulin?
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 14-Sep-2005 11:54 PM

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by iano, posted 09-14-2005 12:26 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by iano, posted 09-15-2005 5:36 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 37 of 141 (243492)
09-14-2005 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by DBlevins
09-14-2005 6:12 PM


Re: Interpretation
Many things are considered to have been very different before the Fall than after, and even more so before the Flood than after, including particularly the climate, which is thought to have been very mild before the Flood. So for instance there is the idea that the (one) ice age began with the Flood -- the frozen giant animals being victims of the Flood as all other life forms were. So while the rings are now yearly markers, at some period in the past some other principle or time factor may explain them.
In a fair debate you should present your principle to explain the observations.
Sometimes the explanation is not available. I am simply defining how YECs think. Creationism is not a thoroughly worked-out system, it is constantly seeking the principles that make it work. It has many, however, and where they exist they are defended. I don't try to get into the really sophisticated issues as I'm not a scientist, but at every level of science the same basic thinking pattern applies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by DBlevins, posted 09-14-2005 6:12 PM DBlevins has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 38 of 141 (243499)
09-14-2005 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by iano
09-14-2005 12:26 PM


Re: Why bother indeed?
iano writes:
Is space and time known absolutely to be linear as we understand it?
There are no absolutes.
Is it absolutely true that the earth goes around the sun or is it just that our current convention (or current common sense) indicates so?
Strictly speaking, it is a matter of our current conventions. Scientific theories establish conventions that we use in our observation reports. It is important to note, however, that the our current conventions make for a far far better fit to observations than did the earlier Ptolemaic conventions.
I can't see how science can comment on the effectiveness or otherwise of prayer.
Psychologists have so commented.
That would pre-suppose that objective/empirical is the only way to know - which is a philosophical position - not truth.
Do you also argue that science cannot comment on the effectiveness of astrology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by iano, posted 09-14-2005 12:26 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by iano, posted 09-15-2005 5:38 AM nwr has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 141 (243500)
09-14-2005 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
09-14-2005 2:11 AM


Re: Interpretation
HOW it is interpreted, the rules for its interpretation, are the issue. A literal interpretation is still an interpretation, but it aims to understand the written text as closely as possible as it was written, or as true to the intention of the text as possible.
Even whether a particular interpretation of a given passage is literal or not is subject to interpretation. Every single phrase of the Bible is subject to interpretation: "In the beginning . . ." What does this mean? God's beginning? The beginning of the universe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 09-14-2005 2:11 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 09-14-2005 9:11 PM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 40 of 141 (243528)
09-14-2005 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by robinrohan
09-14-2005 7:51 PM


Re: Interpretation
Even whether a particular interpretation of a given passage is literal or not is subject to interpretation. Every single phrase of the Bible is subject to interpretation: "In the beginning . . ." What does this mean? God's beginning? The beginning of the universe?
Yes, if you approach each sentence in isolation from every other, but if you read it in the context of the entire Bible, which is the way to read it literally, it starts to come together in a coherent picture. That is a big task of course.
But I think this one is pretty straightforward: "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth." Doesn't a natural reading of it pretty clearly mean that the "beginning" is the making of the heavens and the earth?
God therefore already exists. In other parts of the Bible God's nature is described as beginningless and endless, or both beginning and end or alpha and omega, that is, eternal. All parts of the Bible illuminate all other parts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by robinrohan, posted 09-14-2005 7:51 PM robinrohan has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 41 of 141 (243601)
09-14-2005 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
09-14-2005 12:39 PM


Re: Interpretation
quote:
Well, the principle is that God's word is true, so the physical world can't contradict it.
Is it your position that humans are fallable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 09-14-2005 12:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 09-14-2005 11:54 PM nator has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 42 of 141 (243607)
09-14-2005 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by nator
09-14-2005 11:43 PM


Re: Interpretation
Is it your position that humans are fallable?
Yes, but it is also my position that God inspired the writers of the Bible. It was written through the Spirit of God not fallen human nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 09-14-2005 11:43 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by robinrohan, posted 09-15-2005 12:04 AM Faith has replied
 Message 45 by nator, posted 09-15-2005 12:18 AM Faith has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 141 (243612)
09-15-2005 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
09-14-2005 11:54 PM


Re: Interpretation
Yes, but it is also my position that God inspired the writers of the Bible
We have to interpret it. Presumably we are not "inspired."
"We sinned in Adam."
What does this mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 09-14-2005 11:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 09-15-2005 12:16 AM robinrohan has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 44 of 141 (243620)
09-15-2005 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by robinrohan
09-15-2005 12:04 AM


Re: Interpretation
Yes, but it is also my position that God inspired the writers of the Bible
We have to interpret it. Presumably we are not "inspired."
Those who believe it are inspired by the Holy Spirit too, to greater or lesser degrees.
"We sinned in Adam."
What does this mean?
We are fallen, we inherit the sin nature and death from our father Adam as we were all "in" him at the time. BUT Jesus Christ is the new Adam, the liberator from the sin and death the first Adam bequeathed to us. We are in Christ, or "made alive in Christ" no longer dead in Adam -- if we believe in Him as He is presented in the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by robinrohan, posted 09-15-2005 12:04 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by robinrohan, posted 09-15-2005 12:24 AM Faith has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 45 of 141 (243622)
09-15-2005 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
09-14-2005 11:54 PM


Re: Interpretation
quote:
Well, the principle is that God's word is true, so the physical world can't contradict it.
Is it your position that humans are fallable?
quote:
Yes, but it is also my position that God inspired the writers of the Bible. It was written through the Spirit of God not fallen human nature.
Are the people who interpret the Bible today fallable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 09-14-2005 11:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 09-15-2005 12:33 AM nator has replied
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 09-15-2005 3:18 AM nator has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024