Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
604 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, dwise1, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Tanypteryx (7 members, 597 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,119 Year: 4,231/6,534 Month: 445/900 Week: 151/150 Day: 5/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Bronze Standard
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 9 of 41 (788412)
07-31-2016 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
07-30-2016 9:31 AM


It's the height of foolishness to prefer mere humanly devised dating methods to a revelation given us by God Himself that tells us clearly what happened when.

Denying this revelation or its Authorship leaves you with the flawed human methods, but surely it ought to be logical that IF the Bible IS the Creator God's revelation to His human creatures then contradicting it is sheer foolishness.

Also any attempt by its supposed believers to reinterpret time indicators in that revelation, especially in order to reconcile it with worldly methods and ideas, is even more foolish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 07-30-2016 9:31 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 07-31-2016 11:44 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 11 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-31-2016 11:49 AM Faith has replied
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2016 11:56 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 13 of 41 (788419)
07-31-2016 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by LamarkNewAge
07-31-2016 11:49 AM


Re: What about the "sight to the blind" issue, Faith?
Jar says what he calls "dogma" doesn't belong on this thread so I'm not going to answer any posts about the Biblical context here. What I said is complete in itself, perfectly logical and that's the end of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-31-2016 11:49 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 07-31-2016 12:07 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 15 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-31-2016 1:12 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 26 of 41 (788489)
08-01-2016 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Coyote
07-31-2016 11:08 PM


Re: My point was about the text used by New Testament quotations.
And no two creationists seem to place the flood at the same time. Each has a favorite time.

This is false. What "creationists" are you referring to? Most creationists I trust accept a date around 4300 to 4500 years ago, and the only reason I don't have a fixed date is that I keep forgetting how all the numbers add up, but it is certainly possible to pin it down from the Biblical information based on the genealogies given in the Bible. Other dates would have no biblical support.

And when shown that the evidence contradicts that time (i.e., the evidence shows there was no global flood at that time) creationists just change the time.

Nonsense. Who does this? A reference please.

Dates range from about 4,250 years ago to hundreds of millions of years ago. If one date is disproved they just pick another, eventually ending up where they started. Around and around we go.

Oh nonsense. I've stuck to the date range above all along as is common among YECs.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...

Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 07-31-2016 11:08 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 08-01-2016 10:33 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 32 of 41 (788500)
08-01-2016 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Coyote
08-01-2016 10:33 AM


Re: My point was about the text used by New Testament quotations.
If you accept a date in the 4300-4500 range, why are you concerned with rocks and geological strata? Those are all far older.

Are you really unable to figure out the answer to this, meaning you're so stubbornly glued to the OE system you can't think outside the box, or are you simply insisting on it even knowing the answer? The answer of course is that I don't believe they are older, I reject the dating systems you use. I don't accept anything that contradicts the Bible.

When no evidence for a global flood is found in soils which date around 4300 years ago, you and many other creationists look to rock layers dated many million to hundreds of millions of years ago.

What? If I don't agree that those rocks are that old then I'm not switching my position in the slightest, and it's you who are simply imposing your false dates on me. The "no evidence" in the soils YOU date to the time WE believe the Flood occurred, is based on YOUR preconception that I reject. You miss the real evidence for the Flood because you are glued to your own paradigm. You really should at least acknowledge the position of your opponents even if you don't agree with it, instead of dogmatically pronouncing yours correct.

You may think you are sticking to the 4300-4500 date range but your claims for a global flood rely on geological strata that are millions of years old.

Well, there it is, your belief being treated as reality to disqualify mine. This is some kind of fallacy in a debate but I don't know what to call it. A form of begging the question perhaps. You pronounce those strata to be millions of years old without the slightest recognition that creationists have good reason to reject your dates. I AM sticking to the date range I gave because I do NOT recognize YOUR system of dating. What YOU think is millions of years old is simply NOT, it's only a few thousand years old. It doesn't matter if you personally believe this, in order to argue fairly you have to acknowledge it as a different view from yours. This is a case of ossified paradigm.

And in order to perform these mental gymnastics you must use the most tortured of rubber band years, compressing billions of years into a few thousand.

There is nothing tortured about my view of these things, I simply, very simply, absolutely reject your dating system. I experience no cognitive strain whatever, perform no mental gymnastics, and I do not in any way change my view of when the Flood occurred. I have no reason to. Your billions of years are a fiction, it costs me nothing to laugh and ignore them.

Unfortunately for those claims, all the scientific evidence shows that they are incorrect, but as those claims are based on belief rather than evidence this seems to be of no consequence.

This is the worst case of paradigm cramp I've ever seen.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 08-01-2016 10:33 AM Coyote has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 12:05 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 34 of 41 (788506)
08-01-2016 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
08-01-2016 12:05 PM


Re: My point was about the text used by New Testament quotations.
I am capable of recognizing the point of view of the opposition that I am disagreeing with; Coyote on the other hand can't seem to process the fact that creationists have a different view of the evidence than he does. To him the strata just ARE ABSOLUTELY hundreds of millions of years old, and he can't seem to recognize even the possibility that I really do see them as only thousands of years old.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 12:05 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 08-01-2016 1:02 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 1:40 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 38 of 41 (788520)
08-01-2016 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by NoNukes
08-01-2016 1:40 PM


Re: My point was about the text used by New Testament quotations.
You are missing the point. He doesn't even recognize in the middle of the argument that I HAVE an objection to conventional dating, THAT"s what Im talking about. It also doesn't matter if you think I get the opponents' view wrong, just being aware that there IS a point of view opposed to me is more than Coyote seems to be aware of. Getting my point of view WRONG would be an improvement.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 1:40 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 08-01-2016 3:19 PM Faith has replied
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 5:51 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 676 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 40 of 41 (788531)
08-01-2016 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
08-01-2016 3:19 PM


Re: Everyone understands your position
I'm sorry, you've changed the subject. I made a completely different point and I'm leaving it there for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 08-01-2016 3:19 PM jar has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022