I'm not sure if this belongs in here or anything, mods feel free to move it (please don't close it though), but for a school persuasive essay, I was given this subject. Unfortunetly, I have absolutely no idea how to compare these two.

To make it all worse, I have to present a 4 minute speech on why Darwin's viewpoint is right.

Could anybody give me some ideas, thoughts or comments on this?

do you mean evolution vs creation?

use google fool or search the numerous threads that discuss that very thing.

think fossils, dna evidence, comparative anatomy, etc.

quote:Originally posted by butch:

To make it all worse, I have to present a 4 minute speech on why Darwin's viewpoint is right.

LOL

It seems as though the teacher is not only bias, but forcing his bias on unsuspecting children.

And they claim that Christians are brainwashed.

LOL

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

LOL

It seems as though the teacher is not only bias, but forcing his bias on unsuspecting children.

And they claim that Christians are brainwashed.

LOL



Religion was removed from school, and in science the teachers are supposed to teach evolution and darwinism, and how it ties in with the real world. Social Darwinism is very real, and if you think that shouldn't be taught then you know nothing of this world, and you need to go back to school or die.

quote:Originally posted by Apoxyus:

Religion was removed from school, and in science the teachers are supposed to teach evolution and darwinism, and how it ties in with the real world. Social Darwinism is very real, and if you think that shouldn't be taught then you know nothing of this world, and you need to go back to school or die.

Social Darwinism is not the topic... maybe you need a remedial reading and comprehension class http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

His essay (persuasive type, 1 ea) is on "Darwinism and god ", which also tends to leave out your arguement of "religion removed from school"... not to mention that it sounds as if this is an assignment from a non-science class.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Social Darwinism is not the topic... maybe you need a remedial reading and comprehension class http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

His essay (persuasive type, 1 ea) is on "Darwinism and god ", which also tends to leave out your arguement of "religion removed from school"... not to mention that it sounds as if this is an assignment from a non-science class.

I never said Social Darwinism was the topic dumbass. They first teach kids in science about darwin and evolution. Then when the kids get older they teach them about the social side of it, and how it pertains to the world. Perhaps you are the remedial one.

quote:Originally posted by Apoxyus:

I never said Social Darwinism was the topic dumbass. They first teach kids in science about darwin and evolution. Then when the kids get older they teach them about the social side of it, and how it pertains to the world. Perhaps you are the remedial one.

Thank you for the kind words.. glad you think i am a remedy, but i cant take credit.. my faculties are on loan from God... but i am TRYING to help.

As far as the rest of your post, nice attempt at trying to save face...

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

LOL

It seems as though the teacher is not only bias, but forcing his bias on unsuspecting children.

And they claim that Christians are brainwashed.

LOL



It's not bias when it's true. Whether you like it or not, there are mountains of emperical evidence supporting Darwin's views. Thus , the scientific Theory Of Evolution is accepted and is taught in our public school systems.

The position the student was assigned is far easier to defend (with the emperical evidence available) than if he were to have been assigned to defend any metaphysical view.

How is science biased again? Or right, its biased against irrationality... The fact of the matter is that Darwin was right.

You may not believe that, but the scientific community does, and if you want to learn about one of the most important scientific theories of all time you have to learn about Darwin. It's also important to show that the arguments made by Intelligent Design Creationists have been completely refuted by mainstream science.

Someone needs to explain that certain beliefs are just bullshit. If not teachers, then who?

QUOTE Originally posted by truckfixr:

It's not bias when it's true. Whether you like it or not, there are mountains of emperical evidence supporting Darwin's views. Thus , the scientific Theory Of Evolution is accepted and is taught in our public school systems.

No, there are mountains of evidence supporting the presumption of long ages.. but that is only from and because of, a preconcieved perspective (bias).

BUT....

The position the student was assigned is far easier to defend (with the <<snipped>> evidence available) than if he were to have been assigned to defend any metaphysical view.

I will agree with you here, that it is easier to defend.



Time for bed

Johnny

So before anyone goes all conspiracy theorist maybe they should learn more about the class. It's not uncommon for a class to take a debate stance on essays (draw from a hat, and you must present an argument for your slip of paper). I've ran into a number of people who had to defend creationism for their project.

For those who claim old ages are because of bias, I should point out, the geology those old ages come from started before evolution came around (let alone held solid ground in the scientific community) and was created by creationists. I guess they were just ahead of the conspiracy. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Xtreem. You have always seemed to me to be someone willing to objectively consider evidence before accepting or rejecting the evidence presented. Take your time and read what this scientist has to say regarding the age of the earth and the accuracy of the methods used to determine said age.

This guy is probably the worst thing a Young Earth Creationist can encounter: A genuine Christian scientist.

From linked site :

"Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory".



http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html



Examine the evidence he presents and see if you can honestly continue to hold to the same views you now hold.

QUOTE Originally posted by truckfixr:

Xtreem. You have always seemed to me to be someone willing to objectively consider evidence before accepting or rejecting the evidence presented.

Thank you truckfixr, i really do try. You did, however, make the task difficult by putting your impression of me on the line. Because of that, i have given quite abit of thought to this response.

First, let me point out that my opinion is that it is either impossible or next to impossible for any human to be completely objective... me included.



Second, you made the task almost painful, by pointing to a link discussing geology... i still think rocks are boring. lol

Take your time and read what this scientist has to say regarding the age of the earth and the accuracy of the methods used to determine said age.

Thanks for allowing me some time, i finished reading it yesterday morning (not that it was that long of a read, but it's difficult to read something that ya consider boring).

I'm not going to provide links that argue against his position. Mainly because i would have to read those too. (did i mention, rocks are boring) There are a couple of other reasons that i wont handle this post that way ...one being that i am not a geologist, so the best i can do is pick and chose which geologist(s) supports my perspective... which brings us to...

This guy is probably the worst thing a Young Earth Creationist can encounter: A genuine Christian scientist.

And this is also the point that i have to show how or why this contrasts with my bias.

This is something that i wrote on another forum site:



quote:I too, believe that God Created everything about 6k years ago. Maybe this is jumping the gun, but along with the question on the correct interpretation, i think that an important view of the debate would be how OEC can account for:

1. death, disease, destruction before the curse given by God (to Adam and Eve) for Original Sin

2. the order that God's Word puts the created things vs. what secular science says is the order of things i.e. light (day 1) prior to light makers (day 4 - sun, stars), how plants could have been around for long ages (day 3) before a different long age (day 4) when the sun, moon and stars were created--- to give light and heat-- and also before another long age (day 5) when the waters brought forth life-- for the Carbondioxide/Oxygen cycle.

3.justification that, although the first few chapters of Genesis are written with implication to be taken literal, they should actually (if OEC is correct) be taken as some-sort of metaphor.

Anyway, i think these are some of the questions that I would like to see answered if OEC is the correct viewpoint.

Good luck with the debate.

John

That being said, my bias is basically this:

**note** where i use the word 'if', please dont take that as me questioning my faith, it's just that i'm trying to explain about 30-35 years of life's walk. *****

If there is a god, and that god is the God of the Bible, then the Bible IS God's Word.

And if it is God's Word, there is no way to put millions and billions of years into the Biblical account, without compromising God's Word...

that is to say, there are only two ways to accept the long ages that science says are true, and still believe in God's Word.

1. compromise God's Word by calling it metaphorical

2. ignore the differences, and in effect, compromise God's Word by saying, "i just dont know, scientist's sure appear to know what they're talking about..but it doesnt matter, I believe Jesus is the Christ, and that is what matters"

Both of these approaches to long ages are really putting man's words/understanding above God's, although the second is, atleast, a somewhat right approach... Jesus is the Christ and that IS the bottom line-- for believers.

Where it (YEC vs. OEC vs. naturalistic origins) becomes an important topic, is from apologetics/witnessing.

First, naturalistic origins and Creation (young or old) are mutually exclusive. Naturalistic origins is a foundational attack at God's Word...

**senario just to show what i mean**

-- Christian (C) and Unbeliever (U):

C. Just believe that Jesus died for your sins and you'll be saved and live in Heaven with God after you die.

U. Why should i believe in sins or Jesus if science has shown that the Bible is wrong in Genesis?

This is the reason that the topic is important (I'm not saying that you implied otherwise) from a Christian perspective.

Now, putting naturalistic origins aside, the next problem (both for believers and unbelievers) is the debate between OEC and YEC. It's a problem for unbelievers for almost the same reason... unbelievers already think that science is the objective truth but that is enhanced by believers not being in agreement.. in otherwords, unbelievers see the disunity of believers as either a subjective understanding of the Bible or complete misunderstanding of the whole issue.

To top that off, OEC are, in general, trying to correct the problem(s) by:

1. Saying/believing science is above God (or that God's Word is incomplete.. therefore, technically wrong

2. Giving answers that, on the surface, seem to join or accommodate science and the Bible.

I've said more than a few times in TOTSE, that i respect atheists over agnostics... this is partly because they "live their faith".. it's a non-compromise worldview...

I'm not saying that they can not be saved, i'm saying that they (the hard atheist, which is always what i mean when i say atheist) have taken a stand and "live their faith"

Yet another non-compromise worldview would be YEC... i only hope that others perceive me as "living my faith", although, i know that i fall short.

from the LITV (Literal Translation of the Bible):

quote:Rev 3:14 And to the angel of the assembly of Laodicea, write: These things says the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Head of the creation of God:

Rev 3:15 I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I would that you were cold, or hot.

Rev 3:16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to vomit you out of My mouth.

Rev 3:17 Because you say, I am rich, and I am made rich, and I have need of nothing, and do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.

Rev 3:18 I advise you to buy from Me gold having been fired by fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, and your shame and nakedness may not be revealed. And anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.

Rev 3:19 I, as many "as I love, I rebuke and I chasten." Be zealous, then, and repent. Prov. 3:12

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock: If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will enter to him, and I will dine with him, and he with Me.

Rev 3:21 The one overcoming, I will give to him to sit with Me in My throne, as I also overcame and sat with My Father in His throne.

Rev 3:22 The one who has an ear, hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies.





quote:From linked site :

"Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory".

Please, dont misunderstand me, i'm not putting down his credentials. But, first, there are scientists that are Christian-YEC that have credentials also. And just as people question the validity of their credentials, likewise, that link that you provided is as far as i looked to verify Dr. Wiens patents.

Like i said, i'm not really questioning his credentials, i'm just pointing out that there are people that are as distinguished, that hold to other POV's... so, in effect, this is testimony of what is held as a starting truth of the person.

Examine the evidence he presents and see if you can honestly continue to hold to the same views you now hold.

Actually, i have seen similar evidence before. I honestly do read things that are against my beliefs... and i do weigh what i read... and when i was in my pre-teens and teens, before my belief had grown to the point it is at now, most of what i read was science (although, very, very little geology).

About 5 or so years ago, something happened in my life that has increased my Faith tremendously. I wont share my experience with you, because you dont know me.. so it would be useless.. (you would have to know me well enough to judge my honesty, objectivity level (LOL, considering this conversation, that's kinda funny.. but true), you would have to know me well enough to know if i am easily fooled or self-decieved, and you would have to know the circumstances... and even if you knew me that well, i still would not expect you to know it to be true without having had it happen to you)...

anyway, in light of this experience, i can HONESTLY say, that the evidence from Dr. Wiens is not even one little goosepimple to my Faith, or even to my understanding of the foundation of God's Word. i.e. a young Creation.

God Bless,

Johnny

P.S. But still, the most important thing is the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, and His work on the cross is what saves us from eternal damnation.... that, is the bottom line.

quote:Originally posted by butch:

I'm not sure if this belongs in here or anything, mods feel free to move it (please don't close it though), but for a school persuasive essay, I was given this subject. Unfortunetly, I have absolutely no idea how to compare these two.

To make it all worse, I have to present a 4 minute speech on why Darwin's viewpoint is right.

Could anybody give me some ideas, thoughts or comments on this?



How about you change your subject to the Bill of Rights, more specifically, the part about the Freedom of Religion.

QUOTE Originally posted by truckfixr:

Xtreem. You have always seemed to me to be someone willing to objectively consider evidence before accepting or rejecting the evidence presented.

Thank you truckfixr, i really do try. You did, however, make the task difficult by putting your impression of me on the line. Because of that, i have given quite abit of thought to this response.

First, let me point out that my opinion is that it is either impossible or next to impossible for any human to be completely objective... me included.



Second, you made the task almost painful, by pointing to a link discussing geology... i still think rocks are boring. lol

Take your time and read what this scientist has to say regarding the age of the earth and the accuracy of the methods used to determine said age.

Thanks for allowing me some time, i finished reading it yesterday morning (not that it was that long of a read, but it's difficult to read something that ya consider boring).

I'm not going to provide links that argue against his position. Mainly because i would have to read those too. (did i mention, rocks are boring) There are a couple of other reasons that i wont handle this post that way ...one being that i am not a geologist, so the best i can do is pick and chose which geologist(s) supports my perspective... which brings us to...

This guy is probably the worst thing a Young Earth Creationist can encounter: A genuine Christian scientist.

And this is also the point that i have to show how or why this contrasts with my bias.

This is something that i wrote on another forum site:



quote:I too, believe that God Created everything about 6k years ago. Maybe this is jumping the gun, but along with the question on the correct interpretation, i think that an important view of the debate would be how OEC can account for:

1. death, disease, destruction before the curse given by God (to Adam and Eve) for Original Sin

2. the order that God's Word puts the created things vs. what secular science says is the order of things i.e. light (day 1) prior to light makers (day 4 - sun, stars), how plants could have been around for long ages (day 3) before a different long age (day 4) when the sun, moon and stars were created--- to give light and heat-- and also before another long age (day 5) when the waters brought forth life-- for the Carbondioxide/Oxygen cycle.

3.justification that, although the first few chapters of Genesis are written with implication to be taken literal, they should actually (if OEC is correct) be taken as some-sort of metaphor.

Anyway, i think these are some of the questions that I would like to see answered if OEC is the correct viewpoint.

Good luck with the debate.

John

That being said, my bias is basically this:

**note** where i use the word 'if', please dont take that as me questioning my faith, it's just that i'm trying to explain about 30-35 years of life's walk. *****

If there is a god, and that god is the God of the Bible, then the Bible IS God's Word.

And if it is God's Word, there is no way to put millions and billions of years into the Biblical account, without compromising God's Word...

that is to say, there are only two ways to accept the long ages that science says are true, and still believe in God's Word.

1. compromise God's Word by calling it metaphorical

2. ignore the differences, and in effect, compromise God's Word by saying, "i just dont know, scientist's sure appear to know what they're talking about..but it doesnt matter, I believe Jesus is the Christ, and that is what matters"

Both of these approaches to long ages are really putting man's words/understanding above God's, although the second is, atleast, a somewhat right approach... Jesus is the Christ and that IS the bottom line-- for believers.

Where it (YEC vs. OEC vs. naturalistic origins) becomes an important topic, is from apologetics/witnessing.

First, naturalistic origins and Creation (young or old) are mutually exclusive. Naturalistic origins is a foundational attack at God's Word...

**senario just to show what i mean**

-- Christian (C) and Unbeliever (U):

C. Just believe that Jesus died for your sins and you'll be saved and live in Heaven with God after you die.

U. Why should i believe in sins or Jesus if science has shown that the Bible is wrong in Genesis?

This is the reason that the topic is important (I'm not saying that you implied otherwise) from a Christian perspective.

Now, putting naturalistic origins aside, the next problem (both for believers and unbelievers) is the debate between OEC and YEC. It's a problem for unbelievers for almost the same reason... unbelievers already think that science is the objective truth but that is enhanced by believers not being in agreement.. in otherwords, unbelievers see the disunity of believers as either a subjective understanding of the Bible or complete misunderstanding of the whole issue.

To top that off, OEC are, in general, trying to correct the problem(s) by:

1. Saying/believing science is above God (or that God's Word is incomplete.. therefore, technically wrong

2. Giving answers that, on the surface, seem to join or accommodate science and the Bible.

I've said more than a few times in TOTSE, that i respect atheists over agnostics... this is partly because they "live their faith".. it's a non-compromise worldview...

I'm not saying that they can not be saved, i'm saying that they (the hard atheist, which is always what i mean when i say atheist) have taken a stand and "live their faith"

Yet another non-compromise worldview would be YEC... i only hope that others perceive me as "living my faith", although, i know that i fall short.

from the LITV (Literal Translation of the Bible):

quote:Rev 3:14 And to the angel of the assembly of Laodicea, write: These things says the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Head of the creation of God:

Rev 3:15 I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I would that you were cold, or hot.

Rev 3:16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to vomit you out of My mouth.

Rev 3:17 Because you say, I am rich, and I am made rich, and I have need of nothing, and do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.

Rev 3:18 I advise you to buy from Me gold having been fired by fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, and your shame and nakedness may not be revealed. And anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.

Rev 3:19 I, as many "as I love, I rebuke and I chasten." Be zealous, then, and repent. Prov. 3:12

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock: If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will enter to him, and I will dine with him, and he with Me.

Rev 3:21 The one overcoming, I will give to him to sit with Me in My throne, as I also overcame and sat with My Father in His throne.

Rev 3:22 The one who has an ear, hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies.





quote:From linked site :

"Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory".

Please, dont misunderstand me, i'm not putting down his credentials. But, first, there are scientists that are Christian-YEC that have credentials also. And just as people question the validity of their credentials, likewise, that link that you provided is as far as i looked to verify Dr. Wiens patents.

Like i said, i'm not really questioning his credentials, i'm just pointing out that there are people that are as distinguished, that hold to other POV's... so, in effect, this is testimony of what is held as a starting truth of the person.

Examine the evidence he presents and see if you can honestly continue to hold to the same views you now hold.

Actually, i have seen similar evidence before. I honestly do read things that are against my beliefs... and i do weigh what i read... and when i was in my pre-teens and teens, before my belief had grown to the point it is at now, most of what i read was science (although, very, very little geology).

About 5 or so years ago, something happened in my life that has increased my Faith tremendously. I wont share my experience with you, because you dont know me.. so it would be useless.. (you would have to know me well enough to judge my honesty, objectivity level (LOL, considering this conversation, that's kinda funny.. but true), you would have to know me well enough to know if i am easily fooled or self-decieved, and you would have to know the circumstances... and even if you knew me that well, i still would not expect you to know it to be true without having had it happen to you)...

anyway, in light of this experience, i can HONESTLY say, that the evidence from Dr. Wiens is not even one little goosepimple to my Faith, or even to my understanding of the foundation of God's Word. i.e. a young Creation.

God Bless,

Johnny

P.S. But still, the most important thing is the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, and His work on the cross is what saves us from eternal damnation.... that, is the bottom line.

Wow, what happened there??

seriously, fuck religion, its a private matter that is betwean you and your own fucking self, (who else do you think answers when you pray)

religion shouldn't be in schools, schools are places kids go to learn about things that really happen, one way of making sure they understand the world, is for them to learn some basic and important scientific facts, such as chemistry, biology, physics, maths. not some place where they go to be indoctrinated into some kind of thought-system, a thought system which is artificial and doesn't fit well with reality, having religion in schools is equivalent to molesting a kids thought-system, a thought system is something kiddies should learn on their own from experiencing the world as it is. not some rigid system imposed from 2000 years ago, it's not healthy.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Please, dont misunderstand me, i'm not putting down his credentials. But, first, there are scientists that are Christian-YEC that have credentials also. And just as people question the validity of their credentials, likewise, that link that you provided is as far as i looked to verify Dr. Wiens patents.

Like i said, i'm not really questioning his credentials, i'm just pointing out that there are people that are as distinguished, that hold to other POV's... so, in effect, this is testimony of what is held as a starting truth of the person.

I honestly have no expectations of you changing your beliefs due to anything I or anyone else might say to you. I find it truly amazing that any intelligent individual could take an honest look at all the evidence and come to the conclusions that you reach.

When you get right down to what is really important, you find truth. Whether good or bad , truth is truth. If one is unwilling to honestly question the validity of their beliefs, they believe out of ignorance.

I have examined the evidence presented by many YEC "scientists". The ultimate truth cannot be based on false information. I have yet to see any evidence that isn't based on misrepresentation of actual facts or the incorrect application of scientific method. (I make this claim without presenting evidence to support my assertion. If you have any doubt to the accuracy of my claim, I will be more that happy to post several examples in support of my statement.I simply have no desire to flood this post any more than necessary.)

As far as qualifications are concerned, I challenge you to name five YEC scientists who actually have a degree in the field of science they try to disprove.I'll even give you one to start you off :Behe. A PhD in any other field does not make someone an expert in biology or geology. I(obviously not a scientist) am a senior master automotive service technician with 30 + years experience. I am no more qualified to perform a heart transplant than a surgeon would be to diagnose am intermittent drivability concern on a new car. I respect the surgeon's expertise in the area of medical science. Beyond that, his opinions carry little weight.Likewise, in relation to geology or physics,I respect the opinions of a geologist or physicist over the opinions of someone with different qualifications and areas of expertise.

quote:Actually, i have seen similar evidence before. I honestly do read things that are against my beliefs... and i do weigh what i read... and when i was in my pre-teens and teens, before my belief had grown to the point it is at now, most of what i read was science (although, very, very little geology).

About 5 or so years ago...

...anyway, in light of this experience, i can HONESTLY say, that the evidence from Dr. Wiens is not even one little goosepimple to my Faith, or even to my understanding of the foundation of God's Word. i.e. a young Creation.

Can you honestly say that your belief in a young earth is based on rationality and not on your desire for it to be true.I understand that it would affect your entire belief, but can you honestly disregard what you rationally have to know is genuine evidence in order to retain your beliefs?

quote:P.S. But still, the most important thing is the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, and His work on the cross is what saves us from eternal damnation.... that, is the bottom line.

The most important thing is the TRUTH. Ultimately neither of us will know what the truth is while continue to breathe.The best we can hope for is to form our beliefs on what we deem to be truth.



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 03-21-2006).]

i'm sorry truckfixr, i should really be more timely with responses or stay out of TOTSE completely...

Anyway, i will not take up your challenge of " to name five YEC scientists who actually have a degree in the field of science they try to disprove"... mainly because it is moot and also because it would prove nothing.. a simple search will find them, but if i present them it leaves open possibilities that those would not be satisfying to you.

You mention "I find it truly amazing that any intelligent individual could take an honest look at all the evidence and come to the conclusions that you reach.

When you get right down to what is really important, you find truth. Whether good or bad , truth is truth. If one is unwilling to honestly question the validity of their beliefs, they believe out of ignorance."...

This knife cuts both ways. But as i've said before, it boils down to what one holds true first: God's Word or man's ideas.

Long ages do not fit into the Bible! Theistic evolution, Gap theory, Day/Age; they are all ways to compromise the starting premise that man's ideas are correct, while still trying to hold to Faith in God's Word... or vice versa.

(again, i am not saying that it is impossible to be saved while thinking that long ages are true. Being Saved comes only from the Grace of God; and that only by trusting that Jesus paid the penalty of our Sin)

quote:Can you honestly say that your belief in a young earth is based on rationality and not on your desire for it to be true.I understand that it would affect your entire belief, but can you honestly disregard what you rationally have to know is genuine evidence in order to retain your beliefs?

Yes, i can honestly say that it is based on rationality, not desire. And i honestly am not disreguarding what you call genuine evidence. And that is the point i'm trying to make.. that all beliefs have presupositions. From mine, God is. And the Bible is His Word. Since long ages dont fit in the Bible, then i either trust His Word or compromise... but if i compromise at the foundation of His Word, then alot of theological hoop jumping needs to be done.

I would like to share something that i stumbled across today, that made me get off my duff and respond to you. (Again, i am sorry for taking so long. And you are not the only one i've done it to. Sometimes it is a time commitment problem with family and work, but in this case it was out of laziness and procrastination.)

Anyway, here is what i'd like to share:

quote:CSC: WELS Topical Q&A: The Beginning and the End: Creation: The Beginning and the End - Creation (04)

Most Recently Posted | Ask a Question

Q: In explaining six-day (literal) creation, how does one go about conveying the importance of that interpretation? For example, I've heard the response, "Well I think the point of Genesis is that God was the one who created the world... regardless of how long it took", obviously in favor of six-day/era creation. How do you show that this is more than mere hairsplitting?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A: There are many who delude themselves into thinking that they can adopt an "in-between" position, giving credence to God as Creator yet still being "scientific" in the eyes of contemporaries. The difficulty, of course, is such a mediating position is impossible if one takes the Scriptures at face value. Apart from the creation account itself, which clearly portrays a literal six day creation event, the rest of Scripture attests to that interpretation. A couple of examples will demonstrate the unity of Scripture on this point. Read through Exodus 20:8-11. God institutes the Sabbath law on Sinai. In verse 11 it specifically mentions that God made the universe in six days and rested on the seventh day. If one interprets that verse as representing eons of time, verses 9 and 10 become nonsensical. Suddenly, in the immediate context, we switch interpretations of the vocable. If it means eons in verse 11, then verse 9 will command man to work 6 eons of time, and then rest for a seventh eon. Clearly, the inspired writer views the creation account as a six day period and God resting on the seventh day. God instructs his people about the Sabbath regulation accordingly.

Another example is taken from our Savior's ministry. Jesus viewed the creation account as historical fact and says so in Matthew 19. If the Genesis account was simply describing a powerful God at work during vast eons of time, then the specific reference to Adam and Eve as a unique creative act from the hand of a loving Creator would simply become some etiological myth to explain the origin of people. Jesus speaks of Adam and Eve as real. Look at Matthew 19:1-6. Jesus is explaining the institution of marriage and goes back to the reality of the Garden to do so. If Adam and Eve were just some story, Jesus would either be a simpleton who doesn't know much, or a liar trying to deceive. Either way, he would not be the very Son of God, perfect and true in every word uttered.

The above was taken from: http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=72&cuItem_itemID=3112

I would like to add to it alittle...

By believing in long ages, it negates the doctrine of the Fall of Man, thus making the Mosaic Law subjective and the need for a Savior useless... not metaphoric or allegorical, but useless.

And i think this is also relevant to our discussion:

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=72&cuItem_itemID=3114



P.S. I started out just browsing this Q&A site, in a search of Questions of different religions, not in the purpose of our discussion.. not that it matters, just wanted you to know.

and again:

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=73&cuItem_itemID=10212

And this one is saying pretty much what i've already stated.. although, much shorter and to the point:

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=73&cuItem_itemID=10029

Creationists are their faiths own worst enemy. By creating the false dichotomy that you must be a creationist to be a christian it drives people away.

Looking over those Q&A things, remember the people answering them are only human, I have only viewed a few and have already found errors. I would recomend more research.

I find it sad so many christians attack evolution without even getting a good understanding of it.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Creationists are their faiths own worst enemy. By creating the false dichotomy that you must be a creationist to be a christian it drives people away.



Exactly. What's worse, they insist that their creation myth must be able to be explained by science.

There is absolutely no reason why the biblical myth of creation would have to be explained by natural phenomenon at all; it could very well be explained as a "miracle" - a supernatural act.

It's their greedy desire to have their religious beliefs taught in every single aspect of life, even those that are incompatible with it, that has resulted in their pitiful endeavors in science - which has, in turn, driven many more people away.

Evolution can't be true because the bible says otherwise.

The bible is true because it is God's word.

It is God's word because the bible says so.

See the problem here? It's circular reasoning. The assertion that the bible is true comes from nowhere. The only way to reason that the bible is God's word and that it is 100% true is if it were 100% true in every regard. How can you tell if it's true?

Put it up against science. Test it against things. Determine objectively if the bible has merit in order to determine if it is God's word.

In other words, the only way it can be true is if it agrees with what we know to be true- not the other way around.

You can't start from the assumption that this book is true, and then disprove science with it- That's just ridiculous.

It has to work where the bible's accuracy is determined by what we know to be true.

And don't give me this "the word of man over the word of God" crap- The bible was written by men! Sure you can claim they were divinely inspired, but we only know that because the bible itself says so! If modern scientists disprove the bible, can't we conclude that perhaps those men were not divinely inspired? Maybe modern scientists are divinely inspired!

I know, I know, from Galileo to Darwin, scientists have always been the Achilles heel of christianity (although they were christian themselves!).

Ever asked someone about something, (like where they were last night, etc.) and then based off that statement attempt to figure out other things? (who they were with, what time they got home, etc.) But then you hear from other people with no reason to lie who say things that don't fit in? (like he was with another woman, was drinking, etc) Did you doubt them and automatically invalidate everything they had to say, simply because it disagreed with the original statement?

Well, maybe if your a dumbass...But most people will turn around and start questioning the original statement. After all,(going back to the infidelity example) you have the testimony of someone who has no reason to lie, against the testimony of someone who by all rights should lie if what the first person said was true. So then, quite obviously, you probably dump said boyfriend/husband or what have you.

Yet, the bible thumpers prefer their circular reasoning to justify it. It works well, considering that you can really keep reasoning that way forever...

...assuming you never become intelligent enough to realize that you are, just going in circles.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

There is absolutely no reason why the biblical myth of creation would have to be explained by natural phenomenon at all; it could very well be explained as a "miracle" - a supernatural act.

Yep. Not to mention there is no reason why the biblical myth must be literal. Although Xtreem says it will destroy the rest of the bible, that's only if everything is taken literally. So we end up with the claim a non literal belief will contradict a literal belief, go figure.

Although really brings into question who and what these christians really believe. If the earth is Gods creation then it can be considered another book of the bible. Just like most christians should try to base their faith on the entire bible, they should try to base their faith on the bible and Gods creation. If this "new" (really the oldest) book must be ignored, or worse, lied about, to keep the faith then something is wrong here. (Ironically I've ran into christians who would rather say God lied and created the earth as a way to deceive us and test our faith than to admit they might be wrong).

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

i'm sorry truckfixr, i should really be more timely with responses or stay out of TOTSE completely...

Not a problem. Don't worry about it. I also have a life away from totse.

quote:Anyway, i will not take up your challenge of " to name five YEC scientists who actually have a degree in the field of science they try to disprove"... mainly because it is moot and also because it would prove nothing.. a simple search will find them, but if i present them it leaves open possibilities that those would not be satisfying to you.

Names are really unimportant. The point I wanted to make was that the vast majority of Creation Scientists offering their theories(as in hypotheses, not as in scientific)have little to no training in the science they try to disprove.Having a limited understanding of the basic foundations of said science can naturally lead to misinterpretation of the evidence.

quote:You mention "I find it truly amazing that any intelligent individual could take an honest look at all the evidence and come to the conclusions that you reach.

When you get right down to what is really important, you find truth. Whether good or bad , truth is truth. If one is unwilling to honestly question the validity of their beliefs, they believe out of ignorance."...

This knife cuts both ways. But as i've said before, it boils down to what one holds true first: God's Word or man's ideas.

Truth is truth, regardless of which you believe first. It's simply much more difficult to accept as truth what goes against what we believe first.

I was raised in a Christian environment. I understand how difficult it is to let go of beliefs that are taught as truth from an early age, even though the beliefs contradict what has been shown to be true .

quote:Long ages do not fit into the Bible! Theistic evolution, Gap theory, Day/Age; they are all ways to compromise the starting premise that man's ideas are correct, while still trying to hold to Faith in God's Word... or vice versa.

(again, i am not saying that it is impossible to be saved while thinking that long ages are true. Being Saved comes only from the Grace of God; and that only by trusting that Jesus paid the penalty of our Sin)...

...By believing in long ages, it negates the doctrine of the Fall of Man, thus making the Mosaic Law subjective and the need for a Savior useless... not metaphoric or allegorical, but useless.

Therin lies the problem... Which is more rational to be true? On one hand you have the bible, on the other , our current understanding of the natural universe.

The bible describes a six day creation, and is interpreted by many to indicate a young earth(through lineage), with man /animals being created in their current form. With day and night existing before the sun. With trees, grass , and herbs existing before the sun.With the earth created before the sun and stars.This is only from the first chapter. I don't feel the need to continue further.



Science shows a very old earth (approx 4.5 billion years) - through radiometric dating,etc.That the universe is many billions of years older (through astronomy- redshift/blueshift).We know that day/night are the result of the earth's rotation in relation to the sun(the sun being necessary before day/ not could be possible). We know that our sun is young in comparison to most stars in our galaxy.We know that plants require sunlight for photosynthesis to occur.We know that species change over time.(we obviously don't completely understand all the processes involved, but we know that it happens). These things are shown to be true. There is a wealth of evidence and sound reasoning to support the claims.

Xtreem, you're an intelligent person. You have to know , at some level of your consciousness, that the evidence science provides is valid. Even were some of the evidence misinterpreted, the greatest majority is sound.

How can it be rational to hold to a belief (based on faith alone) when all available evidence contradicts said belief?

Being steadfast in your beliefs is honorable. Being steadfast in a belief based on faith alone is irrational.

We know as fact that literal biblical creation cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny. How is it rational that we should place faith in the remainder of the book?

QUOTE Originally posted by Beta69:

Creationists are their faiths own worst enemy. By creating the false dichotomy that you must be a creationist to be a christian it drives people away.

No, Beta, it is not our own worst enemy. The point is, if God exists and the Bible is His Word, then He is THE eyewitness. Therefore, the Faith IS the belief that what He says is true.

There is no false dichotomy, as i have said already:

quote:(again, i am not saying that it is impossible to be saved while thinking that long ages are true. Being Saved comes only from the Grace of God; and that only by trusting that Jesus paid the penalty of our Sin)

To be a Christian requires only to believe Jesus is the Christ; that He paid the penalty for our Sins.

And as far as creationists driving people away...

Just as it is impossible for a human to talk another into Salvation (reminder: it is between the Holy Spirit and that person), it is also impossible for a human to talk another out of Salvation. This is the nature of Sin... we are all "stillborn" until we recieve the Life that is Christ the Lord.(The most a creationist can be, reguarding this, is a stumbling block)

quote:Looking over those Q&A things, remember the people answering them are only human, I have only viewed a few and have already found errors. I would recomend more research.

Yes Beta, i agree. I also saw a few mistakes (or, rather, areas that i disagreed) both theologic and scientific. Like you said, we are just human.

quote:I find it sad so many christians attack evolution without even getting a good understanding of it.

And i find it sad that so many reject Christ based on the belief that evolution is correct and proven, thus negating (in their mind) the Bible.



*********

I wrote half of this response last night, and my wife challenged me to a few rounds of "Outlaw Golf". I noticed there are a few more responses since i started typing this...

Depending on the time i get home from work, i'll try to comment on a few of 'em..

One in particular was yours.

Have a great day and my prayers go out to all of you, both believer and non-believer.

Johnny

you know what is wierd, they say that teachers are biased and then they give a christian scientists opinion. my guess is that he was a christian long before he got his degree and isn't that a preconcieved notion(bias) what i am saying here is stop trying to change others beliefs unless you know completely(as in it happened in an expirament/nature that you have recorded data from) that it is right in which case you should show thge data to them and just leave them alone.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

And i find it sad that so many reject Christ based on the belief that evolution is correct and proven, thus negating (in their mind) the Bible.

Johnny[/B]

I agree with you.

Of course there are two main groups that claim that if evolution is correct and proven the bible is false. Creationists and militant atheists.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

Evolution can't be true because the bible says otherwise.

The bible is true because it is God's word.

It is God's word because the bible says so.

See the problem here? It's circular reasoning. The assertion that the bible is true comes from nowhere. The only way to reason that the bible is God's word and that it is 100% true is if it were 100% true in every regard. How can you tell if it's true?

Put it up against science. Test it against things. Determine objectively if the bible has merit in order to determine if it is God's word.

In other words, the only way it can be true is if it agrees with what we know to be true- not the other way around.

You can't start from the assumption that this book is true, and then disprove science with it- That's just ridiculous.

It has to work where the bible's accuracy is determined by what we know to be true.

And don't give me this "the word of man over the word of God" crap- The bible was written by men! Sure you can claim they were divinely inspired, but we only know that because the bible itself says so! If modern scientists disprove the bible, can't we conclude that perhaps those men were not divinely inspired? Maybe modern scientists are divinely inspired!

I know, I know, from Galileo to Darwin, scientists have always been the Achilles heel of christianity (although they were christian themselves!).

Ever asked someone about something, (like where they were last night, etc.) and then based off that statement attempt to figure out other things? (who they were with, what time they got home, etc.) But then you hear from other people with no reason to lie who say things that don't fit in? (like he was with another woman, was drinking, etc) Did you doubt them and automatically invalidate everything they had to say, simply because it disagreed with the original statement?

Well, maybe if your a dumbass...But most people will turn around and start questioning the original statement. After all,(going back to the infidelity example) you have the testimony of someone who has no reason to lie, against the testimony of someone who by all rights should lie if what the first person said was true. So then, quite obviously, you probably dump said boyfriend/husband or what have you.

Yet, the bible thumpers prefer their circular reasoning to justify it. It works well, considering that you can really keep reasoning that way forever...

...assuming you never become intelligent enough to realize that you are, just going in circles.

Wow!!!

Why havent I and every other Christian ever thought of that??!!

And I'm disapointed in all the non-beleivers on TOTSE that it was never mentioned... allowing us to continue on the merry-go-round http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)

Thank you IanBoyd3 for showing us the light

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Don't be so hard on him, xtreem.

He doesn't understand that you are not at fault for willfully ignoring logic in its entirety if it disproves your religion, or deliberately ignoring it in order to illogically "support" it.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-04-2006).]

QUOTE Originally posted by Rust:

Exactly. What's worse, they insist that their creation myth must be able to be explained by science.

There is absolutely no reason why the biblical myth of creation would have to be explained by natural phenomenon at all; it could very well be explained as a "miracle" - a supernatural act.



Just for the record, i believe i have said something like that in the past... that i have no problem with the "God dunnit" answer.

To me, the main purpose of creation science is to show that there are other possible interpretations of the evidence.

It's their greedy desire to have their religious beliefs taught in every single aspect of life, even those that are incompatible with it, that has resulted in their pitiful endeavors in science - which has, in turn, driven many more people away.

Rust, greed (or greedy desires) is not the only possible motivation..

Setting my Christianity aside for a moment..

It's no hair off my nuts, if no unbeliever gets saved. I know that i am saved.

And earthly speaking, i gain nothing if some or all get saved. In fact, i do know that i have said in the past, that unless it is God's Will, i do not want to even know if i had/have been the one that sowed or had worked the soil that led to the Salvation of someone... because then i would run the risk of getting "big head disease" and have the possibility of thinking that it was me or my 'arguements' that saved that person, and claim the glory for myself (stealing the glory from God).

I gain no money from it. And most likely, neither would the church i attend, since i think i'm the only TOTSE member in this little town.

The Bible does talk of rewards when we get to Heaven, but since i have no concept of them, then that motivation to me, is nothing.

To me, being saved is reward enough, but i already have that without works.

I cant speak for any other Christian, but for me, there really are only two reasons that i post here on TOTSE or share my Faith with anyone:

1. Jesus' command.. (the Great Commission)

2. Love.. (letting others know what i have-- Salvation, that they can have that too)

Johnny

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Just for the record, i believe i have said something like that in the past... that i have no problem with the "God dunnit" answer.

To me, the main purpose of creation science is to show that there are other possible interpretations of the evidence.

If that's the purpose of "creation science" then it's doing a miserable job in doing so.

"Creation science" gives explanations that are logically impossible with what we currently know. For example, we can determine the speed of light mathematically; that is, we have determined it with the use of logic. The speed of light completely refutes the possibility of a young creation, yet creation "scientists" still propose that it is possible, when it is logically impossible with the current evidence we have.

This isn't just a matter of giving alternative views on the evidence, it is a matter of ignoring logic even if it shows that your "alternative explanation" is wrong.

quote:

Rust, greed (or greedy desires) is not the only possible motivation..

[...]

1. Jesus' command.. (the Great Commission)

2. Love.. (letting others know what i have-- Salvation, that they can have that too)

Johnny

I'm not saying that those are the only possible motivations, there are of course many more. I don't mention them because I haven't seen any of them in actions.

Jesus doesn't command you to do push and shove creationism; especially not where it doesn't belong.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-04-2006).]

QUOTE Originally posted by Beta69:

Yep. Not to mention there is no reason why the biblical myth must be literal. Although Xtreem says it will destroy the rest of the bible,

Actually, i think that i said (prior to this post of yours)

" quote:By believing in long ages, it negates the doctrine of the Fall of Man, thus making the Mosaic Law subjective and the need for a Savior useless... not metaphoric or allegorical, but useless.

Let's go with the short answer here..

If God said He Created in six days...

If God cursed even the ground...

If God said that He sent His Son to die for our Sins...

If it is anything less (or different) than what He says, that would either be a lie or a fabrication.

that's only if everything is taken literally. So we end up with the claim a non literal belief will contradict a literal belief, go figure.

As far as i can think right now, all Christian denominations teach a literal Christ, a literal death and resurrection of the Christ.

If God was literal there, why would He not be literal in the foundational book of His Word?

Time for bed.

nite,

Johnny

quote:To me, the main purpose of creation science is to show that there are other possible interpretations of the evidence.

Except creation science is perfectly happy fabricating evidence to support their cause and ignoring evidence that contradicts their views.

I would say that's a bit more than just a different "interpretation."

quote:Actually, i think that i said (prior to this post of yours)

Ah yes, doctrine not bible.

Long ages only destroy the fall of man if the story is taken literally. The doctrine itself is still secure in a non literal interpretation.

quote:Let's go with the short answer here..

If God said He Created in six days...

If God cursed even the ground...

If God said that He sent His Son to die for our Sins...

If it is anything less (or different) than what He says, that would either be a lie or a fabrication.

It would only be a lie or fabrication if he said a six day creation is meant literally. Where is that stated? Otherwise it may be you that is mistakenly believing it should be literal.

quote:As far as i can think right now, all Christian denominations teach a literal Christ, a literal death and resurrection of the Christ.

If God was literal there, why would He not be literal in the foundational book of His Word?

The books you are trying to compare are different. Genesis is the eventual writings of a people who may or may not have believed their story came from God and if so may not have realized what he meant. The books about christ on the other hand are the accounts of people who were possibly there watching and talking with christ.

Remember, the bible is Not God written, only inspired (if that). It's first and foremost a groups opinion about which human writings best portray the Abrahamic God and his son.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

As far as qualifications are concerned, I challenge you to name five YEC scientists who actually have a degree in the field of science they try to disprove.I'll even give you one to start you off :Behe. A PhD in any other field does not make someone an expert in biology or geology.

Hi truckfixr,

I have the day off of work so before i go do some yardwork i just thought i'd post this.

As far as Behe is concerned, i was unaware the he was YEC.. i have quoted some of his stuff in the past, but at that time i was pretty sure that he wasnt even Christian (just that he made some arguements against evolution).

As to the list i'm about to post, i only clicked on one scientist (Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist... and that was only cuz steve austin was the 6 million $$ man http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) ).

Anyway, if you or anyone else is interested in checking to see if any/all/some/none of these names fit your challenge....

As i've already pointed out, at least for me, i think it's kinda pointless... atleast, as a whole. Perhaps not a bad idea when reading something that individual has to say.. but aside from verifying the credentials from an outside source, way too time consuming for me.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

Anyway, there it is.. for whatever it's worth.

Johnny

I think truck made a mistake, Behe isn't a YEC but an IDist and accepts the majority of evolution and an old earth.

Beta, you're absolutly right about Behe. My mistake.

Xtreem, I'll be happy to look over the site you linked as soon as I can.

It all makes perfect sense.

God made everything perfect.

Lions ate grass and the people

rode around on friendly dinosaurs.

Then an evil snake talked them

into eating a forbidden apple.

That's when god made smallpox

and tapeworms.

A little later, a squad of

angels on some kind of recon

mission on earth got horny and

knocked up a bunch of women.

They had giant monster babies,

and god had to open the water

doors in the sky to drown them

(and to make fossil fuels).