Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pat Robertson denies Young Earth Creationism
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5951
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(3)
Message 28 of 86 (681910)
11-28-2012 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nwr
11-28-2012 10:55 AM


Pat Robertson said something that actually makes sense. Incredible!
If you teach your children things that are contrary to all the available evidence, then you are going to lose them. And trying to justify it as "teaching them to believe the Bible" is false, because YEC (in this specific case the 6,000-year age) is not based on the Bible, but rather on theology, on fallible human (mis)interpretation of what they think that the Bible says. Though "creation science" goes even further in that when (they would say "if") it is found that the earth is indeed old, then they demand that you abandon your faith and become an atheist. The gross error that they are committing with that is that an old earth only contradicts their theology and says nothing about the Bible itself nor about God Himself.
Teach your children the truth!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nwr, posted 11-28-2012 10:55 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by kofh2u, posted 11-28-2012 7:30 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5951
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 29 of 86 (681914)
11-28-2012 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
11-28-2012 1:23 PM


Yes I've tried to do the calculations, didn't spend a lot of time at it. It's hard to keep the different dates of births and deaths lined up correctly, but I assume it's possible if you have the patience for it, which I don't, which is why I defer to Bishop Ussher.
It's really quite simple to do and to keep everything lined up correctly, at least up until the Flood. I read one creationist's calculations (more likely somebody else's that he failed to properly attribute, something he very commonly did in his newsletter) which then used other information to get him to the succession of kings, at which point he added up all their reigns up to the Babylonian Captivity, the end of which he says is set at 538 BCE, which places the starting point at about 4185 BCE. He gave the age of the earth in then-current 1996 at 6181 years, but he had inadvertently added a year by not having taken into account the lack of a Year 0. The Jewish Calendar reported 1996 as the year 5757, so this calculation yielded an age 424 years greater than the Jewish Calendar does.
A rainy-day activity that doesn't really have any relevence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 11-28-2012 1:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5951
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(2)
Message 48 of 86 (682026)
11-29-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by kofh2u
11-28-2012 7:30 PM


DWise1 writes:
Teach your children the truth!
By which you mean the science supported emergence of truth as far as is humanly possible to determine at this time?
By which I mean do not teach them lies. That should apply to matters of both science and non-science.
Obviously, the context here is in reference to scientific evidence, so do not teach blatant falsehoods about the evidence. Based on my 30 years of experience with the subject, "creation science" consists almost entirely of lies about science, lies about scientific evidence, and lies about whatever else they think might serve their agenda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by kofh2u, posted 11-28-2012 7:30 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by kofh2u, posted 11-29-2012 7:08 PM dwise1 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